1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6828 OF 2008 1. Baliram s/o Dalpat Dhadi, Age 34 years, Occu.Service, R/o Hari Om Niwas, Plot No.37, Flat No.3, Khotenagar, Near Bus-Stop, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon 2. Jagatsing s/o Dagadu Patil, Age 30 years, Occu.Service, R/o 38, Jankinagar, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon 3. Ujwala d/o Sudam Ghuge, Age 30 years, Occu.Service, R/o Chincholi, Tq. and Dist.Jalgaon 4. Patangrao s/o Rarvan Bhadane, Age 36 years, Occu.Service, R/o 19/B, Phule Colony, Parola Road, Dhule, Taluka and District Dhule .. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon 3. The Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd., (MKCL), Pune 4. Kavita Bhimrao Survey, Age 33 years, Occu.Service as Extension Officer (Education), Panchayat Samiti, Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon 2 5. Pratibha Suresh Sanap, Age 40 years, Occu. Service as Extension Officer (Education), Panchayat Samiti, Yaval, Tq. Yawal, Dist.Jalgaon 6. Saroj s/o Ramkrushna Gaikwad, Age 36 years, Occu.Service as Extension Officer (Education), Panchayat Samiti, Chalisgaon, Dist.Jalgaon 7. Khalil Ahmed Shaikh Mohd., Age 31 years, Occu.Service as Extension Officer (Education), Panchayat Samiti, Jalgaon Dist.Jalgaon 8. Bhikan s/o Tarachand Patil, Age 38 years, Occu.Service as Extension Officer (Education), Panchayat Samiti, Bhadgaon, Tq.Bhadgaon, Dist.Jalgaon 9. Vikas s/o Mahadu Patil, Age 36 years, Occu.Service as Extension Officer (Education), Panchayat Samiti, Chalisgaon, Dist.Jalgaon 10. Bhavna Pundlik Bhosale, Age 33 years, Occu.Service as Extension Officer (Education), Panchayat Samiti, Parola, Taluka Parola, Dist.Jalgaon 11. Tushar s/o Dnyandeo Pradhan, Age 32 years, Occu.Service as Extension Officer (Education), Panchayat Samiti, Raver, Tq. Raver, Dist.Jalgaon .. RESPONDENTS Shri V.P.Latange, Advocate for petitioners Shri V.H.Dighe, AGP for respondent No.1 State Shri Vijay Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2 Shri S.G.Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for respondent No.3 Shri V.D.Salunke, Advocate for respondents 4 to 11 3 - WITH - WRIT PETITION NO.677 OF 2009 Maya d/o Shravan Amodkar, Age 40 years, Occu.Service, R/o Nivrutti Nagar, Flat No.13/1, Gut No.21, Taluka Jalgaon, District Jalgaon .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Collector, Jalgaon, Dist.Jalgaon 2. The Chief Exuective Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, District Jalgaon 3. The Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd., (MKCL), Pune .. RESPONDENTS Shri B.S.Shinde, Advocate for petitioner Shri V.H.Dighe, AGP for respondent No.1 Shri Vijay Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2 Shri S.G.Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for respondent No.3 - WITH - WRIT PETITION NO.5622 OF 2008 1. Babasaheb Pilaji Gore, Age 30 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Barshi Naka, Beed 2. Prafullakumar Shrikisanji Varma, Age 24 years, Occu.Nil, R/o AT Post Madalmohi, Tq. Gevrai, Dist.Beed 4 3. Shaikh Shaheen d/o Dilawar, Age 30 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Kalegaon (Haveli), Post Nalwandi, Taluka and Dist.Beed 4. Pandav Sunil Govindrao, Age 32 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Dhondipura, Beed 5. Deepak Ramchandra Kamble, Age 24 years, Occu.Nil, R/o Gajanan Nagar, Nalwandi road, Beed 6. Jaya d/o Ramdas Chandan, Age 34 years, Occu.Nil., R/o At Post Dhatsalvi, Taluka and Dist.Beed 7. Feroz s/o Mahboob Bagwan, Age 29 years, Occu.Nil R/o At Post Khokarmoh, Tq. Shiroor, Dist.Beed .. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. The Zilla Parishad, Beed through its Chief Executive Officer 3. The District Selection Committee, Through its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Beed 4. Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd., Pune (through its Director) .. RESPONDENTS Shri S.B.Talekar, Advocate for petitioners Shri V.H.Dighe, AGP for respondent No.1 Shri N.L.Jadhav, Advocate for respondents 2 and 3 Shri S.G.Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for respondent No.4 5 - WITH - WRIT PETITION NO.6466 OF 2008 Vinodkumar s/o Shriram Panchal, Age 26 years, Occu.Service, R/o Jagalpur, Taluka Jalkot, District Latur .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Rural Development & Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 2. The District Selection Committee, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon, Through its Member Secretary 3. The Collector, Jalgaon and President, District Selection Committee, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon 4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon 5. Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd., Head Office I.C.C.Trade Towers Senapati Bapat Road, Pune 411 016 6. Dnyaneshwar s/o Madhavrao Shimpi, Age : 36 years, Occu.Service, R/o Quarter No.3, Panchayat Samiti Vikas Colony, Waki Road, Jamner, Tq. Jamner, Dist. Jalgaon ..RESPONDENTS Shri P.G.Rodge, Advocate for petitioner Shri V.H.Dighe, Advocate for respondent No.1 and 3 Shri P.N.Kutti, Advocate for respondent Nos 2 and 4 Shri S.G.Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for respondent No.5 6 - WITH - WRIT PETITION NO.7024 OF 2008 1. Anuradha w/o Angad Kshirsagar, Age 19 years, Occu.Service, R/o Kakramba, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist.Osmanabad 2. Laxmibai Vitthal Zakade, Age 26 years, Occu.Service, R/o Kunhali, Taluka Umerga, Dist.Osmanabad 3. Mahendra Gyanubarao Khandare, Age 34 years, Occu.Service, R/o Parvati Nagar, Parbhani, Taluka and Dist.Parbhani 4. Digambar s/o Pandu Rathod, Age 34 years, Occu.Service, R/o Nadgavhan, Post Mudana, Tq. Mahagaon, Dist.Yeotmal 5. Gaikwad Sunil s/o Bansidhar Age 31 years, Occu.Service, R/o At Post Santsena Nagar, Tq. and Dist.Parbhani 6. Lokhande Dattatraya s/o Gorakh Age 26 years, Occu.Service, R/o At Post Andora, Tq. Kalamb, Dist.Osmanabad 7. Sachin s/o Digambar Jadhav, Age 23 years, Occu.Service, R/o Behind Shivaji College, Umerga, Tq. Umerga, District Osmanabad 8. Dnyanoba s/o Mahadeo Chadare, Age 28 years, Occu.Service, R/o Wadgaon (S), Tq. and Dist. Osmanabad 7 9. Bhagwat Balwant Naphte, Age 28 years, Occu.Service, R/o At Post Chautha, Post Padoli, Tq. and Dist.Buldana 10. Abasaheb s/o Bapu Survase, Age 27 years, Occu.service, R/o At Post Tandulwadi, Taluka Tuljapur, Dist.Osmanabad 11. Satish s/o Digambar Vaidya, Age 43 years, Occu.Service, R/o At Post Tq. Barshi, Dist.Solapur .. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Department of Rural Development & Water Conservation, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032 2. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad 3. The Chief Executive Officer/ The President, Selection Committee, Zilla Parishad, Osmanabad 4. Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Pune through its General Manager, Dr.Atul Vadegaonkar .. RESPONDENTS Shri S.A.Wakure, Advocate for petitioner Shri V.H.Dighe, AGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 Shri S.B.Ghute Advocate for respondent No.3 Shri S.G.Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for respondent No.4 - WITH - WRIT PETITION NO.4898 OF 2009 8 1. Sow.Kavita w/o Bhimrao Surve, Age 34 years, Occu.Service, R/o Kusumba, Tq. and Dist.Dhule 2. Sow. Saroj w/o Ramkrishna Gaikwad, Age 37 years, Occu.Service, R/o Damjinagar new Kali nagar, Bhadgaon road, Pachora, Taluka Pachora, Dist.Jalgaon 3. Sow. Pratima w/o Suresh Sanap, Age 38 years, Occu.Service, R/o Plot No.147, Mohannagar Shrihari Apartment, Jalgaon, Dist.Jalgaon 4. Shaikh Khalil Ahmed s/o Shaikh Mahammad Age 37 years, Occu.Service, R/o Mahammad Ali road, Parola, Tq. Parola, Dist.Jalgaon .. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Education Department (Primary), Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon through its Chief Executive Officer, Taluka and Dist.Jalgaon 3. The Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd., (MKCL), Pune .. RESPONDENTS Shri V.D.Salunke, Advocate for petitioners Shri V.H.Dighe, AGP for respondent No.1 Shri Vijay Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2 Shri S.G.Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for respondent No.3 - WITH - WRIT PETITION NO.4900 OF 2009 9 1. Bhikan s/o Tarachand Patil, Age 39 years, Occu.Service, R/o Abhiyanta Nagar, Dhule road, Chalisgaon, District Jalgaon 2. Tushar s/o Dnyandeo Pradhan, Age 36 years, Occu.Service, R/o Plot No.10, Dakewadi, Mehrun road, Jalgaon, Tq. and Dist.Jalgaon 3. Vikas s/o Mahadu Patil, Age 36 years, Occu.Service, R/o Amdade Taluka Bhadgaon, District Jalgaon 4. Bhavana Pundlikrao Bhosale, Age 37 years, Occu.Service, R/o C/o Bhosale P.B., 23, Hareshwar Nagar, near MIDC, Jalgaon, Tq. and Dist.Jalgaon .. PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary, Education Department (Primary), Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai 2. The Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon through its Chief Executive Officer, Taluka and Dist.Jalgaon 3. The Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd., (MKCL), Pune .. RESPONDENTS Shri V.D.Salunke, Advocate for petitioners Shri V.H.Dighe, AGP for respondent No.1 Shri Vijay Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.2 Shri S.G.Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for respondent No.3 10 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ (Date of reserving the judgment : 14.9.2009 Date of pronouncing the judgment : 16.10.2009) JUDGMENT [ PER P.V.HARDAS , J ] Writ Petition No.6828 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioners praying therein for issuance of a writ for quashing and setting aside the select list dated 15.11.2008 published by the respondents and also prays for directing respondents to act as per the select list published on 10.7.2008. In Writ Petition No. 677 of 2009 the petitioners pray for quashing and setting aside the select list dated 15.11.2008 and to act as per the select list dated 10.7.2008. Writ Petition No.7024 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioners praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order dated 1.11.2008 passed by respondent no.3 staying the appointment orders of the petitioners and also prays for quashing and setting aside the recruitment procedure undertaken by the respondents by relying on the additional list. In this petition the candidates who had been selected/appointed as per the second selection list have not been joined as respondents. Writ Petition No.5622 of 2008 is a petition filed by the petitioners by which the 11 petitioners challenge for quashing and setting aside the advertisement dated 6.9.2008 publishing cut-off list of 187 candidates and inviting them for viva voce which is issued by the Chairman, District Selection Committee and Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed. The petitioners also pray for quashing the integrated final selection list and wait list for the post of Attendants in Zilla Parishad, Beed, published on 21.9.2008 and also pray for directing the respondents to appoint 175 Attendants as per the select list of Attendants published on 14.7.2008. In this petition Rule has been issued by this Court on 17.8.2009 and interim relief has been denied to the petitioners. Writ Petition No.6466 of 2008 has been filed by the petitioners praying therein for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to issue appointment order to the petitioner to the post of Agricultural Officer class-III, Grade-I from O.B.C. category as per the select list dated 10.7.2008. In this petition also Rule came to be issued on 17.8.2009 and the interim relief granted earlier stood vacated. Though in Writ Petition Nos.5622 of 2008 and 6466 of 2008 Rule has been issued, these petitions are heard along with the other petitions. Writ Petition No.4898 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon dated 24.7.2009 terminating the services of the petitioners who came to be appointed pursuant to their selection and whose names appear in 12 the second select list. Writ Petition No.4900 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 24.7.2009 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon terminating their services after their appointments pursuant to their selection as per the select list. The petitioners in this petition were selected as per the first select list as well as as per the second select list. We accordingly issue Rule in all these petitions except Writ Petition Nos.5622 of 2008 and 6466 of 2008, as Rule has already been issued in these petitions. All these petitions are being decided by this common judgment. 2. The facts in Writ Petition No.6828 of 2008 are as follows :- On 3.5.2008 Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon had published an advertisement for the post of Development Officer (Education) class-III in daily newspaper inviting applications for nine posts. Since the petitioners claimed to be eligible and holding the requisite qualification, the petitioners submitted their applications. The petitioners also appeared for the written examination which was of 180 marks. On the basis of the result of the written examination, the petitioners were called for interview on a message which was received by them on telephone. The petitioners appeared for the interview which was held on 10.7.2008 and on the next day i.e. on 11.7.2008 the 13 select list was published at 1.30 p.m. According to the petitioners, the names of the petitioners figured in the select list. Subsequently on 15.11.2008 the respondents published a second/new select list of the successful candidates. The petitioners, therefore, have challenged the aforesaid publication of the second selection list dated 15.11.2008. The petitioners impugn the second select list on the ground that it is illegal and contrary to the provisions of law and the candidates who had been selected after following the due procedure of law as per the first select list were informed by publication of the second select list that they are no longer in the second select list, without giving an opportunity of hearing. It is also challenged on the ground that the publication of the second select list is contrary to the provisions of law and natural justice and the publication of the select list itself discloses that some illegalities had been committed by the respondents. The affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 discloses that on the basis of the complaint from Solapur Zilla Parishad a re-verification of the result of Solapur Zilla Parishad was carried out and errors were noticed in the application of Rules in generating the result. The MKCL, therefore, had carried out re-verification in respect of all the Zilla Parishads. The MKCL has filed its affidavit in reply and in detail 14 has pointed out the reasons which necessitated the revaluation of all the answer-sheets and the extent of the error which had crept in the drawing of the first select list. The stand of the respondents is identical. 3. In Writ Petition No.677 of 2009 the facts are similar to the facts in Writ Petition No.6828 of 2006. The aforesaid select list is challenged on similar grounds. In Writ Petition No.7024 of 2008 the facts are that pursuant to the advertisement for appointment to class-IV post of Attendant, the petitioners submitted their application. The petitioners appeared for the written examination and as per the result of the written examination the petitioners were called for interview and accordingly the petitioners came to be appointed by order dated 14.8.2008. Subsequently some eligible candidates who had not been called for oral interview were called for oral interview and an additional list of those candidates came to be drawn and by order dated 1.11.2008 the earlier appointment orders of the petitioners came to be stayed. In response to the filing of this petition, respondent no.3 has filed its affidavit in reply and in the affidavit in reply it is stated that the written examinations were conducted by the Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the "MKCL". MKCL had submitted the merit list for inviting 15 candidates for oral interview and accordingly the interviews were held. After the conclusion of the interviews the candidates who were selected were issued with the appointment orders and accordingly the petitioners joined their duties. It is stated that there were some complaints by Solapur Zilla Parishad regarding the preparation of merit list and the MKCL found some error in application of the Rules in generating the results through the marks generated through scanning and computerized processing and, therefore, MKCL conducted a re-verification of Solapur Zilla Parishad and other Zilla Parishads. The Zilla Parishad also carried out re-verification and had noticed that some meritorious candidates had been omitted and accordingly a revised merit list was drawn and the meritorious candidates left out earlier were called for interview and thereafter a revised merit list came to be prepared. The petitioners had been given appointment as per the incorrect merit list and the appointments given to the petitioners were purely temporary and subject to correction of any illegality or irregularity found in the selection process. It is also stated that a manual exercise was carried out on revision of the marks obtained by the candidates and the revised merit list submitted by MKCL was found to be correct. It is also stated that the services of the petitioners have not been stayed but only their appointments are stayed as they have been appointed on the basis of incorrect marks. An affidavit in reply has also been filed 16 on behalf of respondent no.4 which is similar to the affidavit in reply and the contentions of MKCL in the other petitions. 4. The facts in Writ Petition No.5622 of 2009 are also in respect of the post of Attendant by which names of additional candidates came to be included in the select list. In the affidavit in reply on behalf of respondents no.2 & 3 similar stand is taken about the error in the preparation of the select list based on merit. The petitioner impugns the aforesaid action on the ground that the Rules do not contemplate written examinations to be held by any third agency and, therefore, it was impermissible to entrust the work of holding the examination to the MKCL. Thus, the petitioners also impugn the selection process. It is further contended by the petitioners that the cut-off marks ought to have been prescribed before the commencement of the selection process and it was impermissible to call 187 candidates for interview once the selection was finalised. It is also urged before us that the respondents were estopped from changing the selection list once it was finalised. 5. In Writ Petition No.6466 of 2008 the petitioner claims to have submitted an application pursuant to the advertisement issued by Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon for a post reserved for O.B.C. candidates. The petitioner claims to have appeared for the 17 written examination and also claims to have been called for interview on the basis of his merit. According to the petitioner, since the name of the petitioner appeared in the select list, he ought to have been issued with the appointment order. The petitioner impugns the selection of the additional candidates in the select list as contrary to law. Affidavit in reply filed on behalf of respondents no.2 & 4 also discloses about certain errors being noticed by the MKCL and about the corrections in the merit list carried out by MKCL. The MKCL has also filed its affidavit in reply explaining as to how on the basis of the complaint of Zilla Parishad, Solapur a revision of the merit list was carried out in respect of all the Zilla Parishads and the errors in the drawing of the merit list were noticed. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners in the respective petitions. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, once a select list was drawn on the basis of the selection procedure as per the Rules, the respondents could not have changed the select list. Primarily, according to us, placement in the select list does not confer any right on a candidate to seek an appointment. The selected candidate does not have any legal right of appointment. However, if the select list is in existence and is in accordance with law, it may not be 18 permissible for the authorities to appoint candidates whose names do not figure in the select list. 7. The core question in these petitions, therefore is, whether the respondents were justified in cancelling the earlier select list and preparing a second select list. We have already adverted to in detail to the affidavit in reply submitted by the respective Zilla Parishads and the MKCL. Large scale irregularity was detected in the generation of marks by the computerised process. The aforesaid exercise was carried out by MKCL on the basis of the complaint made by Zilla Parishad, Solapur. This necessitated the revision of the merit list of all the Zilla Parishads and it was noticed that irregularities existed in the merit list of all the Zilla Parishads. Accordingly, a second select list came to be prepared on the basis of this exercise carried out by the MKCL. This is not an isolated case of any individual candidate but it relates to the irregularities in drawing of the merit lists of all the Zilla Parishads. As pointed out by us above, figuring of the name in the merit list does not confer any legal right on the candidate to seek appointment. In the face of such irregularities in the drawing of the merit list, according to us it was perfectly justified and it was necessary to set right the error which had crept in the drawing of the merit list/select list. The respondents cannot be attributed with any mala fides or bias. In fact, it was the duty of the Officers 19 which has been carried out to the hilt of correcting a faulty merit list. A candidate who is less meritorious than others cannot claim any right to be appointed merely because his name figures in the select list. We, therefore, see no reason whatsoever to quash the second merit list which has been drawn pursuant to the revision carried out by the authorities. The petitioner in Writ Petition No.5622 of 2008 has also raised a challenge to the MKCL in holding the written examination as according to the petitioner the Rules relating to the recruitment in the Zilla Parishad did not contemplate a third agency in conducting the written examination. The aforesaid challenge is a challenge to the recruitment procedure after the candidates had submitted themselves to the written as well as the oral interview. It is only when the revision of the select list was carried out that this challenge is raised. A candidate having once participated in the recruitment process cannot turn round and question the recruitment process. In that light of the matter, therefore, we repel the challenge of the petitioners in this behalf. 8. Learned Counsel for the parties had tendered before us a copy of the report of a Commissioner who had been appointed pursuant to an order dated 18.12.2008 in Writ Petition No.5807 of 2008 (Somanna Babruwan Chendkale vs. The Raigad Zilla Parishad & ors), wherein similar question had arose. In that the 20 commissioner had submitted a report to the Division Bench that the revaluation of the answer-sheets had been carried out by the MKCL because of the malfunctions of the software programme due to error in the software programme on the part of the MKCL. The report of the Commissioner to a large extent, therefore, buttresses and fortifies the contention of the respondents about the error in drawing of the first select list. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in Director, SCTI for Medical Science & Technology and anr. vs. M. Pushkaran, (2008) 1 Supreme Court Cases 448. In the aforesaid case, the judgment of the Division Bench in an intra Court appeal was challenged. The Division Bench in the intra Court appeal had found that there was a temporary vacancy and since the candidates had been selected and a select list of five candidates had been drawn as per the process of recruitment, the persons who were selected and included in the list for regular appointment have to be considered. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Division Bench rendered in the intra Court appeal. The ratio laid down in the said judgment does not apply to the facts of the present case. In the present case large scale irregularities had been noticed in the drawing of the merit list/select list which resulted in revision of the process of drawing 21 the select list and a second select list came to be drawn. Some candidates had already been appointed but their appointments came to be stayed as they did not figure in the second merit list. We have already held that such a revision was necessitated on account of the magnitude of irregularity in drawing the select list and, in fact, it was the duty of the Officers, which has been performed by them to correct an incorrect merit list. No fault, therefore, can be found in the said exercise. Therefore, according to us no case for interference is made out. The candidates in the select list had no right of hearing nor can they claim that they had a right to be heard before a decision was taken to revise the select list on account of detection of irregularities. In such circumstances, therefore, according to us there is no merit in these petitions and Writ Petition Nos.6828 of 2008, 677 of 2009, 7024 of