1 WP 4816.2011 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4816 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s orders Mr. S.T.Veer, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. K.B.Choudhari, Addl. Govt. Pleader for state. Mrs. Geeta Deshpande, Advocate for Resp. No. 2. Mr. S.S.Thombre, Advocate for Resp. No. 3. ............................... CORAM :S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE :06/09/2011 PER COURT : 1. The petitioner had applied for the post of Anganwadi Karyakarti of village Karhol, Tq. and Dist. Aurangabad. 70 marks were allotted for documentation and 30 marks for oral interview. The petitioner secured 45 marks out of 70 for documentation, whereas the respondent no. 3 secured 30 marks out of 70 for documentation. In oral interview, the petitioner secured six ( 6 ) marks out of 30, whereas respondent no. 3 secured 26.62 marks out of 30. Respondent no. 3 was selected. The petitioner challenged the said selection of Respondent no. 3 before the Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad. The Divisional Commissioner, Aurangabad rejected the 2 WP 4816.2011 Appeal/application of the petitioner and held the selection of respondent no. 3 as valid. The said order is assailed in the present Writ Petition. 2. Mr. Veer, the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that though the petitioner secured 45 marks out of 70 for documentation as against 30 marks by respondent no. 3, still the petitioner was not selected. The oral interview that was conducted, was a farce. No proper procedure was followed while conducting oral interview. The marks were not disclosed after the oral interviews were conducted. For five ( 5 ) months the appointment order was not issued. It was just to favour respondent no. 3, the marks of respondent no. 3 were increased by making over-writings. The learned counsel relied on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Hasia etc. V/s Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others reported in AIR 1981 SC -487 and contends that when the procedure for oral interview was improper, then the whole selection stood vitiated. The learned counsel further contends that when the petitioner can secure substantially more marks for documentation, it can not be believed that in oral interview the petitioner would secure such less marks. No relevant questions were asked in the oral interview and three ( 3 ) ladies were called at one time for oral interview. According to the learned counsel, on all these counts, the selection of respondent no. 3 deserves to be set aside and the petitioner deserves to be appointed to the said post. 3 WP 4816.2011 3. Mrs. Geeta Deshpande, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2 supports the order and states that the oral interview was conducted by the Committee of eight ( 8 ) members and separate marks were given by each and every member. More marks were given to the petitioner for documentation as she was widow. The learned counsel contends that no illegality has been committed while conducting the oral interview and appointing respondent no. 3 to the said post. 4. Mr. S.S. Thombre, the learned counsel for respondent no. 3 supports the order passed by the Divisional Commissioner. 5. This Court can not sit as an appellate authority over the objective satisfaction of the members of the Committee, who had given marks on conducting oral interview. This Court can only take into consideration the legality of the procedure adopted and followed. This Court can not interfere with the decision, but can only consider the decision making process. 6. I had directed respondent nos. 1 and 2 to produce record regarding the marks given. The same is produced. I have seen the marks given to the petitioner and respondent no. 3, who are at Sr. No. 74 and 75 respectively in the said list. There does not appear any over-writing over the said marks. 4 WP 4816.2011 7. The petitioner in her application before the Divisional Commissioner did not contend that relevant questions were not asked. The petitioner submits that she had answered all the questions satisfactorily. There is no whisper in the complaint that the relevant questions were not asked. 8. Taking into account the above conspectus of the matter and the limited jurisdiction of this Court, I do not find any illegality being committed while appointing respondent no. 3. 9. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 4816.2011