1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLTE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6715 OF 2008 Shri Kailash Yashwant Patil ......Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others ...... Respondents Mr. Anil Kumar Patil for the Petitioner Mrs. M.P. Thakur, AGP for the Respondents CORAM : SMT. RANJANA DESAI AND A.A. SAYED, JJ. RESERVED ON : 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 PRONOUNCED ON: 16TH OCTOBER, 2009. P.C. 1 The petitioner, by the above petition, is seeking to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 17-06-2008 passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai in Original Application No. 122/2008, with a further direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to produce the answer sheet of the petitioner in respect of written examination as well CDs of video recording of the physical test that was conducted on or about 25-8-2007 and to allot appropriate marks to the petitioner and appoint him as a police constable driver. 2 2 The petitioner had pursuant to an advertisement, applied for the post of police constable driver in OBC category in the employment drive of police constables/drivers at Thane. The grievance of the petitioner is that he was given less marks in the physical test, written test as well as interview, which resulted in his non-selection to the post. There were 58 posts of drivers, out of which 3 were reserved for OBC category. According to the petitioner, the physical test was taken on 25-08-2007 which was for 100 marks, out of which the petitioner was given only 63 marks; in the written examination, out of total 75 marks the petitioner was given only 49 marks and in the interview, out of 25 marks the petitioner was given 21.66 marks. It is averred by the petitioner that he was entitled to get 16 marks instead of 9 marks given to him in the long jump and 18 marks instead of 14 marks in the throw of iron ball. According to the petitioner, if the marks as stated above were alloted to him he would have been selected for the post. 3 Affidavit-in- reply has been filed by one Lata Birbal Shirsat, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Crime Branch, Thane, wherein it is stated that the petitioner was given fair opportunity and after the test was over, the result of physical tests, written test and interview of all candidates were declared by the Additional Commissioner of Police (Administration) and was displayed on the Board of Police Head Quarters and brought to the notice of the petitioner. However, the petitioner did not raise any grievance immediately. It is stated in the reply that video recording of all the events on the police parade ground of more than 10,000 candidates was taken at random and it was not practically possible to cover the performance of each and every candidate of every event. It is further stated that the 3 recruitment drive for the selection of Police Constables/Drivers was conducted openly on the ground and every candidate was given equal opportunity in all tests and in the interview. The marks in the events were allotted to the petitioner on the basis of performance and as per Government Rules and the guidelines mentioned in the Circular dated 16-05-2006 issued by Special Inspector General of Police ( Training and Special Units). 4 It is further pointed out in the reply that the petitioner had given application for revaluation of marks given for the physical tests and in the written paper. Accordingly, the mark sheet of physical test was throughly verified and the rechecking of marks in written examination was done through two different Assistant Commissioners of Police. It is further stated in the reply that on the petitioner's application dated 19-12-2007 for reproduction of video recording CDs for his own purpose the petitioner was informed to pay government fees for the same on 7-01-2008 but the petitioner informed the respondents by way of letter that he did not require the said CDs. It is further stated that the petitioner did not approach the proper authority i.e. Director General of Police, Maharashtra and subsequently the Secretary, Home Department, Government of Maharashtra. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others Vs. The Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Pune and another, reported in AIR 1981 Bombay 95 wherein the Board therein was directed to give inspection of the answer books to the petitioner. 4 5 We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record including the impugned order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bombay. We note that the petitioner had applied for revaluation of the marks of the physical test and written test and accordingly the marks of the petitioner of the physical test were verified and marks in the written tests were rechecked through two different Assistant Commissioners of Police and a reply was sent to the petitioner on 17-10-2007 regarding rechecking of the marks. We also find that the petitioner was offered video recording CDs and was informed to pay government fees for that purpose on 7-01-2008 but the petitioner informed the respondents by his letter that he did not require the said CDs. Pertinently, these facts are not stated in the petition. The petitioner has also not filed any affidavit in rejoinder controverting the facts stated in the affidavit in reply. Having gone through the impugned order we also find that the Tribunal has considered the case of the petitioner on merits also. We note that this petition was also filed some time on 20th August, 2008 and the petitioner has not really pursued the petition in right earnest considering the fact that the entire exercise of selection was over as far back as on 13-09-2007, on which date the list of selected candidates was displayed. In so far as the ruling relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, we must express our displeasure on this ruling being cited before us. The decision in that matter was in fact carried to the Apex Court and the Apex Court has set aside the said decision of the Division Bench of this Court. (See Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Pune and another Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others, AIR 1984 SC 1543) 5 6 The petition is devoid of substance. The impugned order cannot be faulted. The petition is dismissed. A.A. SAYED J. SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.