{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6819 OF 2009 Atul s/o Ramrao Kale Age-31 years, Occ-Legal Practitioner R/o. 24, Vrashali, Shriram Colony, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS The Registrar General, High Court of Judicature of Bombay Ar Bombay RESPONDENT ....... Mr.S.R.Chaukidar, Advocate for petitioner Mr.P.M.Shah, Senior Counsel for respondent ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 12th October 2009 PER COURT: 1. This is a petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to extend the cut off date for zone of consideration in the corrigendum published on 29.09.2009. {2} 2. It appears that an advertisement had been issued on 31st July 2008 inviting applications for 29 posts of Judge Labour Court in the Judicial Service of the State of Maharashtra. As per Clause 2 of the said advertisement, the cut off date, in respect of the eligibility of a candidate to apply, was stated as 31st July 2008. According to the petitioner, this advertisement had not been acted upon and, thereafter a corrigendum came to be issued on 29.09.2009, maintaining the same date of eligibility, as was stated in the advertisement. The petitioner, therefore, in this petition, contends that maintenance of the same cut off date i.e. 31st July 2008 in the corrigendum, published in September 2009, is arbitrary exercise of powers and, therefore, the cut off date is liable to be extended in terms of the date of issuance of the corrigendum i.e. 29.09.2009. 3. Mr.Chaukidar, learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of the aforesaid submissions, has placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in “Union of India V/s Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal” 1994 (4) SCC 212. Reliance is specifically placed on para 3 A of the aforesaid judgment which reads thus - “Insofar as fixation of cut off date is concerned, the same can be regarded as arbitrary by a Court if the same be one about which it can be said that it has been ‘picked out from a hat’, as was found to be by this Court in Dr.Nim V. Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1301, because of which fixation of 19.5.91 as the date for the concerned purpose was held to be invalid.” {3} 4. Countering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Shah, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has urged before us that the respondent had issued only a corrigendum, which amounted to revival of the earlier advertisement and the respondent had not undertaken the exercise of issuance of a fresh advertisement. In that light of the matter, therefore, it is urged before us that there is no arbitrariness in maintaining the cut off date, which was provided for in the earlier advertisement. Further, it is urged before us that in case the corrigendum was to provide a different date than the cut off date provided under the advertisement that itself would be an arbitrary exercise of powers, as those persons, who attained eligibility as per the earlier advertisement would now be rendered ineligible, as many of the candidates, who had applied pursuant to the advertisement, may have been rendered overage by virtue of cut off date in the corrigendum, if provided for. 5. The respondent had undisputedly issued an advertisement on 31st July 2008. In the said advertisement, the cut off date, which was provided for, was 31st July 2008. It appears that pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement, though applications were received, yet not further steps, in respect of recruitment to the posts advertised, were carried out and consequently, a corrigendum came to be issued on 29.09.2009. The effect of issuance of the corrigendum is not to substitute to the original {4} advertisement nor is it issued in lieu of the original advertisement. The original advertisement, therefore, remained in tact. The corrigendum, in clear terms, provides at para 7 that candidates, who had applied pursuant to the earlier advertisement were not required to submit fresh applications. Thus, the candidates, who are eligible as per cut off date provided for in the advertisement, were considered ineligible if the corrigendum was to provide a different cut off date. Those candidates, who are eligible on the date of issuance of the advertisement, would be rendered ineligible by virtue of cut off date being provided in the corrigendum. 6. In that light of the matter, according to us, there is no arbitrariness in the exercise of powers. The Courts, of course, are extremely slow in substituting its opinion like that of an appellate court. Reliance is placed by Mr.Shah, learned Senior Counsel on the judgment of the Supreme Court in “Official Liquidator V/s Dayanand & others” (2008) 10 SCC 1, particularly the observations of the Supreme Court at para 59, which reads thus- “The creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring / restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source and mode of recruitment and qualifications and criteria of selection, etc. are matters which fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. Although the decision of the employer to create or abolish posts or cadres or to prescribe the source or mode of recruitment and laying down the qualification, etc. is not immune from judicial review, the Court will always be extremely cautious and circumspect in tinkering with the exercise of discretion by the employer. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer and ordain {5} that a particular post or number of posts be created or filled by a particular mode of recruitment. The power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provisions or is patently arbitrary or vitiated by mala fides. “ 7. In the light of what has been held by us above, we do not notice any arbitrariness in maintaining the earlier cut off date provided for in the advertisement. Consequent thereto, there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. Writ petition is accordingly summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp6819-09