1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4247 OF 2010. Ku. Aruna Vithalrao Chalkalwar, Chamorshi, Gadchiroli .Vrs. Government of Maharashtra ,thr. Commissioner and Registrar of Co- operation Maharashtra State,Pune. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. (Mr. S.J.Kharbade,Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs. Bharti Dangre, Addl. Government Pleader for respondent) -0-0- CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D.KODE, J J. DATED : 23.06.2011 Heard Mr. Kharbade, learned Counsel for Petitioner, Mrs. Bharti Dangre, learned Addl. Government Pleader for respondent sole. After hearing respective counsel it has been found that the claim for employment by petitioner needed to be considered in category of 2 women N.T.(B) category for the post of Junior Clerk and she had not applied in sports category at all. By impugned communication Petitioner has been informed on 02nd April, 2009 that she could not qualify in sports category. Mr. Kharbade, learned Counsel has invited attention to reply/affidavit, dated 23.03.2011 to point out that this error is accepted by respondent, but then they have continued to blame Petitioner for not approaching within time for getting the error corrected. Mrs. Bharti Dangre, learned Addl. Government Pleader states that there was error and as Petitioner did not seek its correction within time, the select list has now lapsed. Reliance is being placed upon Government Resolution of dated 19.10.2007. After hearing respective Counsel, we find that Government Resolution dated 19.10.2007 is 3 not meant for protecting such errors or then to enable respondent to continue in employment candidate wrongfully selected by them. Mr. Kharbade is trying to demonstrate that said Circular is not applicable to present selection process. Reply filed by respondent itself says that the name of Petitioner was forwarded on 02nd April,2009 by respondent for verification in sports category and the Director of Sports and Youth Welfare disapproved her claim. The Petitioner after learning about it made representation on 10.08.2009 itself and the communication to Petitioner about said rejection is dated 02nd April,2009. The Petitioner then made representation on 10th August,2009 and filed this petition on 02.08.2010. The respondents have not communicated their decision on representation of Petitioner to her matter till date. In this situation it is apparent that the alleged lapsing of selection list in the year 2009- 2010 cannot come in the way of petitioner as other 4 persons whose names appears in it and selected by superseding her claim still continue in employment. Hence, we direct respondent to reconsider the claim of Petitioner as women N.T. (B) candidate for the post of Junior Clerk as early as possible and in any case within the period of three months from today. The decision reached shall be communicated to Petitioner within further period for three weeks by R.P.A.D. The Petition is thus, partly allowed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE scd//