1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 3586 of 2011 Rajivkumar v. The State of Maharashtra and anr -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Mr V.G. Wankhede, Adv for petitioner Ms A. R. Taywade, AGP for respdt 1 Mr P. Chavan, Adv for respdt no.2 Coram: B. P. Dharmadhikari and A. P. Bhangale, JJ Dated: 4th October 2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. It is not disputed that petitioner as on 9.6.2011 accepted that his appointment on 21.1.2000 was in ST category. Similarly, on 31.5.2011, Secretary of respondent no.2 has written to him pointing out that he was appointed in ST category and a roaster point was accordingly filled in. 2. Contention of Mr V.G. Wankhede, learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was appointed in open category cannot, therefore, be accepted in this background. 3. Mr V.G. Wankhede has placed reliance on order dated 20th September 2011 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2851 of 2011 (Ku Sunita v. State of Maharashtra & ors). Perusal of that order itself reveals that there the candidate 2 accepted her appointment against reserved category and after validity given as a SBC candidate, employer regularised her recruitment as a SBC candidate. A communication dated 15.12.2006 was accordingly issued to her. Subsequently, ignoring that communication and almost after five years, she was called upon to produce validity as belonging to ST category. Thus, facts therein are entirely different. 4. We, therefore, do not find any case made out for interference. Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Judge Judge joshi