1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3576 OF 2010 Dinesh s/o Nana Khandikar .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 ..Respondents Mr.V.J.Dixit,Senior Counsel with Mr.S.P.Tiwari and Mr.M.S.Sonawane, Advocates for petitioner Mr.S.K.Tambe, A.G.P. for respondents 1 and 2 Mr.R.S.Pawar, Advocate for respondent No.3 CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 28th June 2010 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.3 to appoint the petitioner for the post of Agricultural Officer (Class-III, Grade I), under the project for the person of V.J.N.T. category. 2. The petitioner, it appears has acquired the necessary qualifications which are contemplated for appointment to the post of Agricultural Officer. An advertisement came to be issued on 1.4.2010 in which one post of Agricultural Officer was shown as reserved for V.J. (A). Thereafter, a 2 corrigendum came to be issued and the aforesaid post i.e. post of Agricultural Officer was shown to be reserved for V.J.N.T. The petitioner, undisputedly, is a V.J.N.T. candidate, had accordingly undergone the selection process. The corrigendum came to be issued on 3.4.2010. During pendency of the recruitment process, the petitioner has filed this petition on 20.4.2010 praying for the aforesaid relief. 3. Mr.V.J.Dixit, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that in all eleven posts were available for being filled in by the candidates as Agricultural Officer. It is, however, stated by the learned Senior Counsel that out of eleven posts, eight posts were reserved for promotional channel, and three posts were available for direct recruitment. Out of the three posts, two posts were reserved for candidates belonging to open category while one was reserved for V.J.N.T.candidate. The grievance of the petitioner as can be culled out from the arguments of the learned Counsel is that no reservation is provided for project affected candidates. It is stated that as per the policy decision of the Government enunciated from several government resolutions from time to time, 5% reservation for candidates who are project affected is carved out. It is, therefore, urged before us that the advertisement is incorrect insofar as no reservation for project affected candidates is carved out and, therefore, the petitioner, who is the project affected candidate deserves to be appointed to the post of Agricultural Officer. 3 4. In reply, the respondents have urged before us that the post of Agricultural Officer which was reserved for V.J.N.T. was a single isolated post and, therefore, it was not possible to provide 5% reservation for the project affected candidates. It is stated that even if the three posts which were available for direct recruitment is considered, even then 5% reservation is not possible to be provided for project affected persons. In that light of the matter, therefore, it is urged for dismissal of the petition. 5. Though eleven posts were available for recruitment, eight posts were reserved for departmental candidates and, therefore, those eight posts will have to be left out of consideration in order to determine if the petitioner is entitled to be appointed as a project affected candidate by providing 5% reservation for him. Out of the three posts which were available for direct recruitment, two posts were reserved for open category and even if those two posts are considered along with the post reserved for V.J.N.T., 5% reservation is not possible to be provided for project affected candidate. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us no fault can be found with the respondents for reserving the seat for V.J.N.T. candidate and not carving out any reservation for project affected candidate. This does not, however, mean that the respondents should not observe and follow the Government Resolution dealing with providing 5% reservation for project affected candidate. It is expected that the respondents, while advertising the posts in future would take care and ensure that the policy of the government in providing 5% reservation for 4 project affected candidates is scrupulously observed and followed. 6. Since we do not see any merit in the present petition, the petition is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/3576.10wp)