1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2606 OF 2009 (Trusharkumar Gangadhar Tonde .v. State of Maharashtra and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri M.I. Dhatrak, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.S. Fulzele, AGP for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Respondent Nos.4 and 5 are served. CORAM : D.B. BHOSALE AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. 13TH JULY, 2010. P.C. (Prasanna Varale, J). Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the judgment and order dated 05.02.2009 passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Original Application No. 337 of 2006. The brief facts giving rise to filing of the present petition are as follows. The petitioner, in response to an advertisement published by the respondent/authorities on 19.05.2006 for recruitment to the post of Police Constable, submitted his application from the Open Category candidates. The petitioner was called for physical test and secured 74 marks out of 100 marks. Thereafter the petitioner was called for written test and secured 54 marks out of 75 marks. Thus he secured total 128 marks and was placed at serial No.95 in the merit list. The petitioner was thereafter called for oral interview. It was the grievance of the petitioner that though the petitioner has successfully gone through the oral test, was not selected in the final selection list. Being aggrieved by the non selection, the petitioner preferred Original Application and made prayers and sought reliefs in the original application as follows :- “(i) quash and set aside the selection list published by the 2 respondent No.2 of Police Constable on 17.06.2006 and further be pleased to appoint the applicant on the post of Police Constable; (ii) issue directions to the respondent No.2 to produce the docket of marks given to the open category candidates in the recruitment process including applicant and Prakash Rajguru; (iii) Any other relief as this Tribunal Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit and proper”. Shri M.I. Dhatrak, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has sought information from the respondent/authorities under the Right to Information Act and it was informed to the petitioner that the respondent No.4 secured 136 marks; whereas in one list which was supplied to the petitioner, the marks secured by respondent No.4 were shows as 126 marks. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in view of the variance of the marks secured by the respondent No.4, it is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent No.4 was allotted ten additional marks illegally by the respondent/authorities. The further grievance put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent No.5 who was called for interview from open category and was pleased at serial No.19; whereas in the final selection list, the respondent No.5 was shown as a candidate belonging to OBC category. Leaned Counsel for the petitioner, on this above mentioned ground, submitted that the respondent/authorities have erred in preparing final list and the petitioner was entitled to be placed in the final select list in accordance with the marks secured by him. It is not in dispute that these were the very grounds raised before the learned Administrative Tribunal by the petitioner. The respondent/authorities have filed their written submissions before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal in view of the controversy in respect of the marks secured by the petitioner and the respondent No.4 directed the respondent authorities to produce the original record of selection. The original record was placed before the Tribunal. The Presenting Officer before the 3 Tribunal with the help of the record submitted that there was a typographical mistake occurred while giving information to the petitioner. With the help of the original record, the Presenting Officer submitted that the respondent No.4 has secured in all 136 marks excluding the marks of interview and not 126 marks as wrongly informed due to typographical mistake to the petitioner. The learned Tribunal, after perusal of the original record found that there was typographical mistake in giving information to the petitioner and the respondent No.4 has secured in all 136 marks excluding the marks of interview. The respondent/authorities with the help of the original record submitted that the petitioner has secured total 140 marks; whereas the last candidate from the open category who has been selected, has secured 143 marks. In view of the marks secured by the candidates, it was submitted that as the petitioner was placed in lower position in merit list and the last candidate who has secured 143 marks, there was no question of selecting the petitioner for appointment. It will be useful to refer to the observations of the learned Tribunal as follows :- “... learned P.O. was directed to produce the original record of the selection done by the respondent authorities and today learned P.O. has produced the same before us. We have perused the record and it is submitted by learned P.O. that there was typographical mistake in relation to the information given on two occasions to the applicant under the Right to Information Act on 31/10/2008 and 28/11/2007 in respect of the marks obtained by Respondent No.4. He submitted that Respondent No.4 has actually obtained 75 marks out of 100 marks in the physical test, 61 marks in the written test out of 75 marks and 12 marks out of 25 marks in the interview. In view of this, Respondent No.4 has secured in all 136 marks (excluding marks of interview) and not 126 marks as wrongly indicated due to typographical mistake on 28/11/2007. In support of this submission, he has shown the original record pertaining to Respondent No.4, which shows his marks as stated by learned P.O. We have seen the original answer sheet of Respondent No.4, as also the mark lists of different candidates including Respondent No.4 which indicates his marks obtained 4 in the written examination as well as interview”. The learned Tribunal, after perusal of the original record and also after perusal of the original mark sheet of respondent No.4 arrived at the conclusion that the candidature of petitioner was rightly rejected on merits, and we see no reason to take any different view than the view taken by the learned Administrative Tribunal. The grievance of the petitioner in respect of the respondent No.5 is also dealt with by the Tribunal by verifying the record which was submitted by the Presenting Officer. The learned Tribunal has observed thus :- “The learned P.O. has submitted that respondent No.5 actually belongs to O.B.C. Category and is and O.B.C. candidate. This fact is amply proved and verified from his original application form produced by him for our perusal. He further submits that calling of respondent No.5 for interview from out of the open category has no bearing on the selection process either at the stage of interview or final selection because respondent No.4 qualifies for being called for interview both from open and O.B.C. Categories. He has also drawn our attention to the fact that having secured 149 marks, respondent No.5 even though he belongs to O.B.C. category has actually been selected as an open candidate on merit and thus strictly in accordance with the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Sabharwal's case”. In our considered opinion, the view taken by the learned Administrative Tribunal on the basis of record produced before it, is legal and justified one. We see no reason to show any indulgence in interfering with finding arrived at by the learned Administrative Tribunal. In the result, writ petition fails and dismissed accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE *rrg.