1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No. 3886 of 2007. 1. SHAILESH VILASPRASAD TIWARI .. Petitioner/s LAXMI NAGAR, YAVATMAL VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF MAHA. THRU. PRINCIPAL SECTY. & 2 ORS. .. Respondent/s DEPT. OF RURAL DEVP. & WATER CONSERVATION, MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI 2. THE ZILLA PARISHAD CHANDRAPUR THRU. C.E.O. 3. THE COMMITTEE FOR SELECTION OF THE AGRICULTURE EXTN. OFFICER Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Shri F. T. Mirza Advocate for the petitioners. Shri T. A. Mirza, AGP for Respondent no.1. Shri A. P. Thakre Advocate for the Respondents 2 & 3. Coram : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M. REIS, JJ. Dated : 4th AUGUST, 2009. 1. Heard Advocate Shri Mirza who points out that the petitioner is Earthquake affected person for whom reservation is prescribed in category of Project Affected Persons. Total reservation is 5% and out of it, 3% is given to the Earthquake affected persons and 2% is given to Project affected persons. He states that the petitioner is the candidate who had secured 2 highest marks in selection process, and therefore, the appointment order for the post of Agriculture Extension Officer needs to be issued to him by the Respondent no.2 Zilla Parishad, Chandrapur. He has further invited our attention to the Full Bench Judgment of 2009(4) Mh. L.J. 961, Rajendra Pandurang Pagare and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another particularly para 23 & 24 thereof to show that the reliance placed by the respondent no.2 is misconceived, and there cannot be any district wise list or reservation for category of Project Affected Person. 2. Advocate Mr. Thakre on the other hand contends that there were only 10 posts of Agriculture Extension Officer advertised at the relevant time, and hence, 5% reservation could not be prescribed as it would have gone to less than even 0.5% post. He further states that there is no challenge to the Government Resolution dated 23-10-2009 in the present matter and the petitioner who is not resident of Chandrapur District cannot claim the employment with the Respondent no.2. 3. We have perused the relevant papers. It is 3 not in dispute that the petitioner has secured highest marks in the category of Projected Affected Persons. The information obtained by the petitioner under Right to Information Act shows that so far as the said posts are concerned, there total number is 26 and 50% out of i.e. 13 are to be filled in by the nomination and other by promotion. When the reservation for Project Affected persons is applied for the strength of cadre i.e. 13 for direct recruitment, a vacancy in excess of .6% becomes available and, therefore, one post becomes available for Project Affected Person. The petitioner appears to be the only one candidate in that category. 4. The Full Bench Judgment mentioned above clearly shows that the reliance placed upon the Government Resolution dated 23-10-2009 by the respondent no.2 is misconceived here and there cannot be District wise reservation for such Project Affected Persons. 5. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 1/5-2-2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. The Respondent no.2 to consider the entitlement and eligibility of the petitioner and to grant him 4 appointment if he is fully qualified by ignoring the district wise residence in Government Resolution dated 23-10-2009. Rule accordingly. No costs. 6. The directions of this Court be complied with as early as possible and in any case by 31st October, 2009. JUDGE JUDGE /Muley/