1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.618 of 2008 (Anil Janrao Ingle and Ors. vs. State & Ors.) =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- CORAM : D.D.Sinha and Mrs.Vasanti A. Naik, JJ. DATE : February 15, 2008. Heard Mr. A.C.Dharmadhikari, Adv. for the Petitioners. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dt. 27.4.2007 passed by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission whereby the representation of the petitioners submitted before the said Authority pursuant to the order of this Court dt. 9.8.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 6396 of 2005 was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that, on the earlier occasion, the petitioners had filed Writ Petition No.6396 of 2005 and made a grievance that the Maharashtra Public Service Commission had undertaken the process of filling up the posts of Police Sub-Inspector and had conducted written examination on 29.6.2003. So far as the paper of law is concerned, on the said question paper, it was mentioned that the candidates were entitled to refer the books while solving the question paper but the candidates were not permitted to refer the books while solving the questions 2 during the examination. It is further contended that the written examination commenced at 2.30 P.M. and in view of the above referred caption on the question paper, the candidates started referring to books while solving the question papers. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that message was received by the Amravati centre only at 3.30 P.M. that the candidates were not permitted to refer the books while solving the question paper. However, by the time the message was given to the candidates, almost 1½ hour's time had lapsed from the commencement of the written examination and therefore, this entire written examination conducted by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission being inconsistent with the procedure, the same is vitiated. It is not in dispute that this Court vide order dt. 9.8.2006 has observed that the above referred allegations made by the petitioners in the said petition were totally denied by the respondents in the said petition on affidavit and it was categorically stated in the affidavit that the Centre at Amravati was informed well within time not to permit the candidates to refer to the books while solving the questions. This Court also observed in the said order that there was no reason for this Court to disbelieve the statement made by the respondent no.3 in the said petition on affidavit in absence of any malice. However, the petitioner was permitted to make a representation to the MPSC in this regard. The impugned order is passed on the said representation. Perusal of the impugned order shows that the Maharashtra Public 3 Service Commission has appointed the High Level Committee to investigate into the said allegations made by the petitioner as well as some other candidates. The Committee, after due investigation, concluded that the candidates were not permitted to use the books during the course of examination and rejected the representation. There is no reason to doubt genuineness of the stand taken by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission and therefore, no case is made out for showing indulgence in the matter. Even otherwise, the issue pertains to examination which was held in the year 2003. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition suffers from lack of merits. Hence, the same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE ssj