Judgment: B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. 1. Heard finally in the light of order dated 26.2.2013 by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. The said order dated 26.2.2013 reads as under: “After hearing respective learned Counsel for the parties for quite sometime, we find that the person placed at Sr. No.1 in empanelment list was given excessive marks though he was not entitled to same and the petitioner was given less marks. Accordingly, after verification of complaint made by the petitioner marks have been corrected. During argument learned Counsel Mr. Meghe for the respondents has submitted that select list was displayed without complied with of Rule 18, the merits panel was not scrutinized by a Senior Officer of the respondents. It is, therefore, obvious that merits panel to which the petitioner raised objection itself was not scrutinized by the Senior Officer. In this situation, placing the other person at Sr. No.1 cannot be said to be decisive. The said Senior Officer ought to have first verified the marks and recruitment process in accordance with obligation cast upon him by Rule 18 and then the select list ought to have been displayed. Only to find out whether said exercise can now be completed, we place the matter for further consideration on 12th March, 2013.” 2. After that order, an additional affidavit has been filed and our attention has been invited to order dated 3.7.2012, passed by the Dealer Selection Complaint Redressal Forum. The said order shows that the candidate in empanelment list at Sr.No.1 was wrongfully given weightage of 25.20 marks and if that weightage is taken away, the petitioner is elevated to Sr.No.1 in the list of empaneled candidates. However, the order further records that as there is an error in the selection process, fresh re-interviews are necessary. “(ii). Established complaint : Action will be taken as under a) In case the selection process for a location was found to be not in accordance with the laid down guidelines resulting in wrong selection of first empanelled candidate, the merit panel will be cancelled and all the candidates who have appeared for the original interview only will be called for the re-interview. b) In case the dealer selection was done as per laid down guidelines and complaint against the first empanneld candidate is established, action will be taken to cancel the selection of the first empanelled candidate and issuance of LOI to the next candidate in merit panel. Similar action will be taken in case of established complaint against second empanelled candidate also. c) If complaint is established against all the empanelled candidates, the location will be re-advertised if it is viable.” 3. In this background, Shri Meghe, learned counsel, invites our attention to guidelines for selection of retail outlet dealers, particularly guideline no.19(b)(ii). He submits that the error noticed is covered under clause (a) and hence, re-interview is must. As re-interview is to be conducted amongst two candidates, no prejudice is being caused to the petitioner. He prays for dismissal of the petition. 4. According to Shri Sundaram, learned counsel, there is no error in the selection process, but the error has occurred while allotting marks and hence, the case is covered by clause (b) and, therefore, the present petitioner needs to be shifted at the top of empanelment list i.e. at Sr.No.1. 5. After hearing respective counsel for the parties, on the last occasion, this Court had passed above mentioned order dated 26.2.2013. This Court had then noted that the marks as displayed and the panel as published is provisional, which is subject to scrutiny by the Senior Officer of corporation. The Court also noted further that the said Senior Officer had not conducted the scrutiny. Today, Shri Meghe, learned counsel, submits that as per clause 18(b), complaints can be received against the panel, as published, within 30 days. As the complaint of the petitioner was received within 30 days, there was no occasion for the Senior Officer to undertake scrutiny, as contemplated by clause 18(a). 6. Perusal of clause 18(a) reveals that scrutiny by the Senior Officer is must in all cases, whether there is complaint or no complaint, the Senior Officer of the corporation has to check the documents to find out whether the empanelment list has been rightly prepared. If, he finds that there is any error in the selection process, he can recommend appropriate action for re-interview in terms of clause 19(b)(ii)(a). If, he finds marks are not properly allotted, in that event the exercise is covered by clause 19(b). Here that exercise was never undertaken. If, he finds that there is any error in the selection process, he can recommend appropriate action for re-interview in terms of clause 19(b)(ii)(a). If, he finds marks are not properly allotted, in that event the exercise is covered by clause 19(b). Here that exercise was never undertaken. Had the Senior Officer or then the Corporation completed that exercise, there would not have been probably any need for the petitioner to complain or then to approach this Court. 7. The affidavit-reply filed by the respondents in para-10 specifically accepts that excessive weightage was given to two candidates at Sr.No.1. Perusal of Dealer Selection Complaint Redressal order dated 3.7.2012 produced by the respondents also accepts this position. 8. It is, therefore, obvious that by giving excessive weightage to the candidate, the selection process itself is vitiated. Thus, clause 19(a)(ii) is not attracted and merit panel cannot be cancelled. The Dealer Selection Board has followed the guidelines for the purposes of selection process but then has erred in giving excessive weightage to a wrong candidate and keeping him at Sr.No. 1. Thus, excessive marks given to candidates at Sr.No.1 are established and, therefore, the case is covered by clause(b). The name of the petitioner, therefore, needs to be shifted in the empanelment list at Sr.No.1. 9. Accordingly, we allow the petition and direct the respondents to place the petitioner at Sr.No.1 in the empanelment list of selected candidates and to proceed further in accordance with law. The respondents shall take necessary consequential steps within a period of 8 weeks from today. 10. Petition is, thus, allowed and disposed of.