B.R. Gavai, J.

1. 1. The present petition came to be filed by the petitioner praying for quashing and setting aside the revised selection list issued by the respondent No. 1 and further direction to implement the select list dated 3rd October, 2003 issued by the respondent No. 1 and to give an appointment to the petitioner.

.2. The facts in brief out of which the present petition arise are as under :--

.That, the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe category and is also a Project Affected Person. The name of the petitioner was registered with the respondent No. 1, in the list of the Project Affected Persons maintained by the respondent No. 1.

.3. The respondent No. 1, Collector has issued interview call letter dated 19th September, 2003 to the petitioner for being interviewed for selection to the post of class-III category.

.Vide another letter dated 23rd September, 2003, the respondent No. 1 informed the petitioner that the interviews for the said post will be held on 30th September, 2003 instead of 26th September, 2003. The petitioner accordingly attended the interview on 30th September, 2003.

2. 4. The respondent No. 3 declared the Select List of the candidates on the Notice Board in premises of the office of respondent No. 1 on 3rd October, 2003. According to the petitioner, his name was shown at Sr. No. 2 in the said select list on 3rd October, 2003. The petitioner submits that, however, after five to six days, another select list was published on the Notice Board in the office of respondent No.

1. 1. The petitioner submits that surprisingly in the said list, the name of the petitioner was not shown. The petitioner, therefore, made an application to the respondent No. 1 and also sent telegram, pointing out these facts to the respondent No. 1.

2. 5. Being aggrieved by the action on the part of respondent No. 1 in revising the select list, thereby deleting the name of the petitioner and including the name of respondent No. 2, the petitioner approached this Court.

.6. The petitioner also filed an additional affidavit, stating therein that the selection process involved only oral interviews. It is further stated in the said affidavit that only two questions were asked in the oral interview i.e. as to who was the Guardian Minister of Akola and as to who is the MLA of Murtizapur. The petitioner has stated in the affidavit that he had replied both the questions correctly and was confident about the selection. The petitioner has submitted in the said affidavit that there was no criteria for allotment of marks. An affidavit in reply was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1. In the said affidavit, it is stated that the two candidates,

.namely, (i) Vijay Shaligram Lokhande and (ii) Kisan Sukhdeo Lokhande appeared for the interview on 30th September, 2003 along with the other candidates. It is submitted that Shri Vijay Shaligram Lokhande who belongs to Scheduled Tribe secured 104 marks whereas the petitioner has secured only 51 marks. It is stated that, however, due to oversight the name of the petitioner was shown in the select list published on 3rd October, 2003 instead of the name of Vijay Shaligram Lokhande, who was the second highest in the order of merit. It is submitted that accordingly the said mistake was rectified by publishing another select list on 6th October, 2003. It is the contention of the respondent No. 1 that this mistake has occurred due to common surname i.e. Lokhande. It is stated that the petitioner was not successful in the selection process on merit and as such the petition deserves to be dismissed.

3. 7. Looking into the nature of allegations, we had directed the learned Assistant Government Pleader to produce the original record, for the perusal of the Court. From the perusal of the record, it was seen that the criteria for selection was solely on the basis of viva voce test.

4. 8. We have, heard Shri N.P. Dhote, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Shri D. B. Yengal, learne