vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8291 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.8291 OF 2007 WRIT PETITION NO.8291 OF 2007 Smt.Kirti Atul Lahoti ... Petitioner V/s. Deputy Secretary Maharashtra Public Service Commissioner & anr. ... Respondents Ms.Seema Sarnaik for Petitioner Mr.V.P. Malvankar, AGP, for Respondents CORAM: J.N. PATEL & J.N. PATEL & J.N. PATEL & SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. DATED: FEBRUARY 5, 2008 FEBRUARY 5, 2008 FEBRUARY 5, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . Heard. The petitioner has approached this Court for seeking various reliefs including quashing and setting aside the impugned order communicated by letter dated 26.12.2000 and other ancillary reliefs like supply of copy of answer-sheets and other relevant documents and inspection of the same and for fresh enquiry into the matter. In the alternative, it has been sought that the respondents be restrained from taking into consideration or acting upon the impugned order during any examination or interview in future and so on and so forth. 2. The petitioner appeared for J.M.F.C. examination held in 2005 from a Centre at Aurangabad and : 2 : her roll number was AU 001605. It was found that the petitioner had written the number and signed the answer-sheets in violation of the rules which led to cancellation of her candidature for the examination as it was contrary to the important instructions 3, 4 and 5 including the instructions given in the admission card i.e., 14 and 15. The petitioner was given a show-cause notice & which she gave a reply. She insisted upon furnishing her the answer-sheets as she took a stand that she was not the author of the violations noted on page 14 of her answer-sheet which was not accepted and she stood debarred from appearing for the future examinations of the MPSC. Subsequently the said order was modified restricting it to the examination to the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division and JMFC of 2005. The petitioner did challenge the order in this Court by filing Writ Petition No.7676 of 2006 which was disposed of by order dated 7.8.2007 where the Court permitted the learned counsel for the petitioner to withdraw the petition with liberty to challenge the said order in appropriate proceedings before the appropriate forum. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that that is why the petitioner has again approached this Court by filing this petition and that the relief sought for in the petition is different and distinct from the one which was agitated in the earlier petition filed by : 3 : her and that in the meantime, having received the impugned order, she is challenging the same. 4. The respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. They have furnished various particulars including the order and have placed reliance on an unreported decision of a division bench of this Court rendered on 1.8.2006 in Writ Petition No.1737 of 2006 Writ Petition No.1737 of 2006 Writ Petition No.1737 of 2006 filed by one Aditi Ravindra Tapale & Ors. However, the Court has refused to interfere with the decision of the MPSC. In our view, the apprehension expressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner being debarred from the examination of 2005 would carry a stigma in future if she again makes an attempt to appear for the examination for the said post, or for any judicial post. This Court cannot grant the relief merely based on apprehension nor such apprehension can be drawn from the facts of the case and the same is unfounded. 5. We do not find any merits in the petition. Therefore, the petition stands dismissed. (J.N. PATEL, J.) : 4 : (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.)