1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 4655 of 2007. [Pramod S/o Bhaurao Bansod} Vs. [Zilla Parishad, Amravati thro its Chief Officer and others] ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances,Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri MP Kariya advocate for the petitioner Shri Manoj Sable, Advocate for R-1. Shri J. Y. Ghurde Advocate for R-5. Shri M. A. Vaishnasv Advocate for R-4. Coram: D.D. SINHA AND SMT.VASANTI A. NAIK,JJ. Dated : 11th FEBRUARY 2008. 1. Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner in the present petition seeks quashing of select list published by the respondents no.1 & 2 on the basis whereof, the appointment orders are 2 issued. 3. The respondents no.4 & 5 were appointed on the post of Jr. Engineer from open category. 4. Considered the contentions canvassed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Learned Counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned Counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 has pointed out to us that there were four posts mentioned in the advertisement, out of which two were reserved for open category, and two were reserved for project affected persons. The respondents no.4 & 5 secured more marks in the written examination than the petitioner. The respondent no.4 secured 40 marks in written examination and respondent no.5 secured 38 marks in the written 3 examination out of 75, whereas the petitioner has secured 28 marks in written examination. 6. It is brought to the notice of the Court that out of four posts, two were for open category and two were for project affected category. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that the respondents no.4 & 5, who have secured more marks in the written examination were, called for interview and were selected for the said post. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was expecting 40 marks in the written examination, however, the petitioner was, purposely, given less marks, and some malafides are also alleged against the Committee. 8. In the backdrop of the above 4 referred fact, it appears that the respondents no.4 & 5 secured more marks in written examination and therefore, they were called for interview. So for as malafides are concerned, it is very easy to allege, but difficult to prove them. Mere statement made in the petition that the Committee malafidely gave less marks to the petitioner by itself is inadequate to hold that the Committee acted malafidely, so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, in absence of proper material. 9. Hence, petition suffers from lack of merit, same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Sbm