1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2117 OF 2010 The Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Bombay .. PETITIONER VERSUS Balaji Vithalrao Karhale & another .. RESPONDENTS Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. A.V.Gondhalekar, Assistant Govt. Pleader for State. ........................... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, J. & S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 17/03/2010 PER COURT : 1. This petition has been filed by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Bombay being aggrieved by the Order passed by the Division Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay dated 18/01/2010 in Original Application No. 1170 of 2009. It appears that the petitioner takes exception to the order of the Tribunal, particularly paragraphs 3 (iv ) and 4 of the said order, which reads thus, : “ 3 (iv) : Please give justification for change of answers to Question nos. 20, 66, 160 and 177. This is necessary because as per earlier key 2 answers to Question Nos. 20,66,160 and 177 were 1, 2, 4 and 3 respectively and replies by applicant were 1, 1, 4 and 3 respectively i.e. three answers of the applicant were correct as per the 1st key and that is why respondent Commission needs to justify the change of answers to Questions Nos. 20, 66, 160 and 177 by taking into consideration the revised answer in the key to be the correct answer with the help of supporting literature. 4. Applicant has challenged correctness of even the 2nd key for Question Nos. 23, 132, 146, 166 and 180. Replies to these questions in both keys of the Commission are same i.e. option nos. 2, 3, 2, 3 and 2. Applicant has answered those as option nos. 4, 4, 3, 1 and 1. For the purpose learned Counsel has replied upon literature at paper book pages 23, 27, 31,/ 32,/ 38, 50 and 63 respectively. Prima facie we are convinced that literature supports correctness of objection by the applicant with certainty at least about question nos. 132, 166 and 180 ”. Therefore, Mr. Mukul Kulkarni, the learned counsel for the petitioner has very vehemently urged before us that the entire proceedings, particularly the hearing has been conducted by the Tribunal and the information which is sought for by the Tribunal is beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the Tribunal. Reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a reported Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2008 of 2007 - Dr. 3 Shitalkumar S/o Mahadeo Mukane and Others V/s The State of Maharashtra and another dated 7/4/2008. Out attention has been invited to paragraph no. 6 at page no. 8 of the aforesaid Judgement : “ Whether the revised answer key also contains incorrect answers in respect of the questions which were asked to the candidates is a question, which is very difficult, in fact, a well nigh impossible for us to answer. This Court does not have expertise to find out and determine whether revised answer key suffered from errors and consequently incorrect assessment of the candidates at the examination. The candidates were assessed at 189 marks and, therefore, no prejudice at all was caused to any of the candidates in respect of the earlier key which had certain in correct answers notified as correct answers. In any event, all these are questions which can not be gone into under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ”. 2. Indisputedly, what is challenged before us is an interim order passed by the Tribunal in the Original Application which is still pending. Further out-come of the aforesaid order if reflected in the final order, would be affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner to challenge the same before the appropriate forum. We do not propose to interfere at this preliminary stage, particularly when the Original Application is pending before the Tribunal. It is needless to state that since all the grounds which are urged in the present petition have not been decided by us, the said grounds are kept open. 4 3. In the result, therefore, we dismiss the petition with the liberty to the petitioner to challenge the orders at appropriate stage. In the circumstances, no order as to costs. [ S.V.GANGAPURWALA ] [ P.V.HARDAS ] JUDGE JUDGE knp/WP 2117.10