1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLTE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5916 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1973 OF 2009 Patil Sunil Rangrao ...Petitioner Vs. The Raigad Zilla Parishad, Alibag, Dist. Raigad and others .. Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO. 5807 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLCIATIONNO. 1972 OF2009 Somanna Babruwan Chendkale ......Petitioner V. The Raigad Zilla Parishad Alibag and others ...... Respondents Mrs. Jayshree Akolkar for the Petitioners Mr. C.G. Gavanekar for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. S.K. Shetty for respondent Nos. 3 and 4 in W.P.No.5916/08 and for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in W.P. No.s 6807/2008 Mr. G.M. Savgave for intervenor in both CAW Mr. S.N. Patil, AGP for the State 2 CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE : 25TH AUGUST, 2009. P.C. 1 In these petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have inter alia prayed that the selection process launched by respondent No.2 the Chief Executive Officer Raigad Zilla Parishad, Alibag, Dist. Raigad for the purpose of filling up post of Raigad Aushadi Nirmata and for the post of Vistar Adhikari on the establishment of Zilla Parishad Raigad vide advertisement dated 4-5-2008 be quashed and set aside. The petitioners amended the writ petition and added Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd. as respondent 5 and added further prayer that action may be directed to be taken against the 5th respondent i. e. Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd. 2 In short the case of the petitioners appears to be that the second respondent published advertisement inviting applications for the above posts. The petitioners being eligible for the posts applied for them. On 3-7-2008 the second respondent displayed the cut off list. The petitioners' names were shown in the list. After eight days the second respondent published another list which replaced the earlier list. In that list the petitioners’ names were not there. The grievance of the petitioners, is that their names should have figured in the second list and they should have been called for interview. According to the petitioners the 2nd respondent's 3 conduct is arbitrary warranting intervention of this Court. 3 On 18th December, 2008 a Division Bench presided over by Justice Nazki observed that the 5th respondent i. e. Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd. conducted test for recruitment to different posts for various districts. After results were declared, they were changed and some of the candidates who had been declared to have passed, were declared to have failed and some of the candidates, who had been declared failed, were declared passed. The Division Bench referred to the counter Affidavit filed by the Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd. submitting therein that while the answer sheets were fed into the computer, along with the key to answers, there was some mistake or malfunctioning of the system which resulted, in wrong results being published. Certain complaints were received and it was found that mistakes had been committed. Therefore fresh exercise was made and fresh list of successful candidates was prepared. The Division Bench therefore appointed Shri Kiran Bobde, Deputy Registrar as a Commissioner to conduct inquiry and submit his report as to whether the Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd. revalued the mark sheets because of any genuine mistakes or malfunctioning of the system or whether there was deliberate attempt to change the results. Accordingly Shri Bobade conducted inquiry and submitted a report which stated that there was malfunctioning of the software programme due to error in the software programme of the Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd. and therefore the Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd. revalued the answer sheets. 4 On 24th February, 2009 the Division Bench presided over by Justice 4 Mhase passed the following order. “1 Heard. 2 In view of the controversy and conflicting results which were declared by the respondent No.3-MKCL ( for Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd.), we have called the original question papers, answer books and the model answer books from the respective bodies. We hereby appoint Mr. K.R. Belosay, Advocate and Special Counsel for the State to examine all these papers in comparison with the model answer books and find out whether the result declared by the respondent No.3 is proper. He shall prepare his own mark sheets of the candidates from each of the lists and submit to this Court. We direct the learned Counsel for the Zilla Parishad to produce the papers before Mr. Belosay in his office today evening. The Associate of this Court shall hand over the model answer sheets submitted to this Court to Mr. Belosay for the purpose of examining the papers. They are in sealed cover and Mr. Belosay shall return it to this Court in a sealed cover after examining the same. The result shall be submitted tot his Court tomorrow. S.O. to 25-2-2009 at 3.00 clock. " “ 5 Pursuant to this order Mr. Belosay, Advocate, submitted his report dated 3rd March, 2009. The report indicates that out of 76 candidates there were mistakes in calculating the marks of 5 students. In his report Mr. Belosay has set out marks obtained by the candidates in the first and second list as also the marks after verification by him. So far as the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 5916/2008 Shri Patil Sunil Rangrao is concerned the table annexed to the report indicates that in the first list he was shown to have secured 87.50 marks, in the second list he was shown to have secured same marks i.e. 87.50 and the verification done by Mr. Belosay indicates that he got 87.50 marks. Therefore, there is no change in the marks of this petitioner. It cannot be said that he is in any way prejudiced. So far as the petitioner in Writ petition No. 5807/2008 Mr. 5 Sommanna Babruwan Chendkale is concerned, the report indicates that in the fist list he was shown to have got 57.50 marks and in the second list he was shown to have got 100 marks and Mr. Belosay has found that he has got 100 marks. Mr. Chendkale had applied for the post of Vistar Adhikari (Extension Officer). We are informed by Mr. Gavanekar that for this post the last person in the list of persons who were appointed got 115 marks. Considering this in our opinion no prejudice is caused to this petitioner also. Therefore, since both these petitioners are not affected by the computer malfunctioning they are not entitled to any reliefs. 6 We must however, record that it is because of these two petitioners that this Court appointed a Commissioner and the fact that there was a malfunctioning of computer system, which had resulted in incorrect calculation of marks of various candidates came to light. We must also record our appreciation for the work done by Mrs. Jayshree Akolkar learned Counsel for the petitioners. Because of the petitions filed by her the computer malfunctioning in the software programme of Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd.- respondent No. 5 was noticed by this Court. 7 We find that on 2-4-2009 this Court had directed the petitioners to pay the costs of the Commissioner quantified at Rs. 10,000/-. We are informed that accordingly Rs. 10,000/- have been paid by the petitioners in this Court. We have been shown a receipt by learned Counsel for the petitioners which confirms that they have paid the amount as directed by this Court. The said amount has been paid to Mr. Belosay, the Commissioner. Considering the fact that the mistakes are committed by Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd. and the Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation 6 is responsible for this entire mess we feel that it would be appropriate for the Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd. to bear the costs of Rs. 10,000/- and not the petitioners. Hence we direct the Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd. to reimburse the amount of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioners within a period of 2 weeks from today. Let the amount be deposited in this Court so that it can be withdrawn by learned Counsel for the petitioners. The Registry shall permit learned Counsel for the petitioners to withdraw the said amount. 8 Mrs. Akolkar prayed for costs. Her prayer appears to be justified. But there are several petitions involving the same issue. We propose to dispose of those petitions in the near future. At the appropriate time we will consider the prayer for costs to be awarded to candidates. Should the order of costs be passed. the petitioners would be entitled to a share in it and at that stage we shall pass necessary orders in respect of the present petitioners also. 9 The petitions are disposed of in the aforestated terms. 10 Needless to state that in view of the disposal of these petitions the Civil Applications are disposed of. 11 Interim order stands vacated. A.A. SAYED J. SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J