1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.1818 OF 2010 Shri Shamkant Kashiram Margaj : Petitioner V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. : Respondents .... Mr.A.A.Karande for the petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos.1 & 2. Mr.S.S.Kulkarni with Mr.Sachin Chavan for respondent no.5. .... CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,JJ. DATE : JUNE 21, 2010. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 29.1.2010 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal whereby the Original Application filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed. It was the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal that the advertisement issued by the MPSC reserving one post meant for open category for women is not legal and correct. It was the contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal that since one post from open category was to be filled in, the same could not have been reserved for women and since it is reserved for women category, the reservation has resulted in 100% reservation which is impermissible in law and, therefore, the action of the respondents is bad 2 in law. The learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned order. 3. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel and perused the impugned order. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions, in paragraph 12 of the impugned order, has observed thus:- “12. It is not in dispute that the cadre strength of the post of Research Officer is 4. Admittedly, when the advertisement in question was issued only one post from open category was to be filled in. As the Respondent Government had taken a policy decision to fill up the said post from women category, in the advertisement, it was mentioned that “post reserved for ladies, if available”. Shri Karande, learned counsel for the applicant vehemently argued before us that there was only one post to be filled in from open category. The said post should not have been reserved for women in view of the ratio laid down by the Government in their G.R. dated 26.12.2001. It is true that in the 3 said G.R. it is shown that when the ratio is 0.6 then one post can be reserved for women. However, it must be noted that it is nowhere laid down that the 30% reservation for women has no relation with the cadre strength.” 4. It is not the case of the petitioner that the strength of the posts in Research Officer’s cadre was four. The respondents decided to fill up one post out of four which was shown to be reserved for open category. However, considering the reservation of 30% prescribed in the concerned Government Resolution for women candidates, the decision was taken to reserve the said post which was meant for open category candidates, for women candidates. It is not in dispute that the Government Resolution prescribing 30% reservation is applicable in the present case. The petitioner failed to place any material before this Court in order to show that the view taken by the Tribunal is bad in law. 5. Hence, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Writ Petition is dismissed. (D.D. SINHA, J.) (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)