WP No.6031/09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6031 OF 2009 Smt. Vanita Sanjay Deshmukh, R/o. Vakil Colony, Kandhar, Tq. Kandhar, Dist. Nanded. ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. Ajay Deshpande, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.K. Kadam, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. V.S. Panpatte, Advocate for respondent No. 3. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATED : 13th September, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard. 2. The petitioner participated in the selection process. She applied for the post of Senior Assistant in respondent No. 3 - Zilla Parishad as belonging to nominee of freedom fighter. The petitioner appeared in the examination, but she was not selected. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State shall prescribe reservation for nominees of freedom fighter. Unless the same is done, the persons like petitioner would not get WP No.6031/09 2 adequate representation in employment. 4. The respondents filed affidavit in reply. Learned counsel Mr. V.S. Panpatte appearing for Zilla Parishad referred to judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 381/1997 dated 23rd June 2010 and the communication dated 20th June 2006 made to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded in respect of the claim raised by the nominees of the freedom fighter in above Writ Petition. The counsel submits that the petitioner could not be selected. The State Government had informed Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded by communication dated 20th June 2006 to the effect that the State has not fixed any reservation for the persons who are nominees of the freedom fighters. 5. Learned A.G.P. Shri. Kadam on the basis of reply filed and instructions received submits that State has not proposed any reservation for nominees of the freedom fighters. 6. We have considered the material placed before us and submissions advanced. We have perused the judgment cited supra. It is noticed that the petitioner was born on 28.10.1968. On the date of application for recruitment, the petitioner was aged 41 years. In respect of policy adopted by the State which is WP No.6031/09 3 revealed through the Government Resolutions, which are placed on record, we find that no interference is warranted in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition is rejected. 7. Learned counsel Mr. Deshpande submits that Ms. Shivkanya P. Ghogre has joined judicial service and therefore consent would not be obtained on the Vakalatnama. We waive the objection raised by the Registry accordingly. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] ssc/