: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5864 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5864 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5864 OF 2008 Sangita Laxmanrao Sabane ...Petitioner. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr.Godhamgaonkar & Mr.K.P.Mali , advs. for the Petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM: Bilal Nazki CORAM: Bilal Nazki CORAM: Bilal Nazki & J.H.Bhatia,JJ J.H.Bhatia,JJ J.H.Bhatia,JJ. DATE : 12th November, 2008. DATE : 12th November, 2008. DATE : 12th November, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Petitioner was a candidate for the State Service Preliminary Examination-2006. There was a paper of 200 marks and accordingly, the petitioner had secured 121 marks but after the preliminary results were prepared, ten questions were cancelled and as a result, her marks were reduced from 121 to 116. Since cut off point was 121 marks, she could not be called for final examination. It is submitted that the petitioner suffered by cancellation of 10 questions and if it is considered that the respondents could cancel and delete the ten questions proportionately, they should have reduced the cutoff point. This argument can not be accepted on the basis that the cut off point is fixed by the authorities keeping in view the result of the candidates and also the vacancies to be : 2 : filled up. Though it is not mentioned how many vacancies are to filled but it is stated that 1,12,353 candidates could not qualify for preliminary examination and only total of 5,273 candidates qualified for preliminary examination. After examination, commission found that ten questions were wrongly framed or wrong options were given for their answers. Therefore, they cancelled 10 questions for each candidate and, therefore, it can not be stated that any prejudice was caused to the petitioner. Similar questions were raised in two cases before this Court. One was decided by this Bench at Mumbai on 14th June, 2007 in Writ Petition No.2341 of 2007 and another was decided by Aurangabad Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.2208 of 2007. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that final examination is already over and results of the examination have been declared. In this view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere at this stage. 2. Writ petition is dismissed. (Bilal Nazki, J.) (Bilal Nazki, J.) (Bilal Nazki, J.) : 3 : (J.H.Bhatia, J.) (J.H.Bhatia, J.) (J.H.Bhatia, J.)