1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.8457 OF 2009 Yogita w/o Madhavrao Pawse ..PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Mah. & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr S.K. Shinde, Advocate for the petitioner; Mrs A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent no.1; Mr S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondents no.2 & 3. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 16th April, 2010 PER COURT : 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 respondents no.2 & 3 to appoint the petitioner on the post of a Primary Teacher from the category of "Project Affected Persons" in Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. 2. It appears that the petitioner claims to be a project affected person and accordingly has been issued with the appropriate certificate. The name of the petitioner came to be entered in the register maintained by the District Settlement Officer and her name was entered at sr.no.3871 on 3.3.2008. On 28.7.2008 the name of the petitioner came to be 2 recommended for employment from the category of project affected persons. The second respondent had drawn a list of candidates who were selected for the post of Primary Teacher and accordingly the name of the petitioner was shown at sr. no.28. It appears that the communication sent by the respondents to the petitioner asking her to remain present for verification of the documents was not received by the petitioner in time and consequently the petitioner claims that she could not attend the said recruitment process. Resultantly, the name of the petitioner was not considered. 3. Mr Shinde, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that for no fault of the petitioner, the petitioner could not attend the recruitment process and produce the documents for verification. It is urged before us that the petitioner is entitled to be appointed from the said category. Mr S.T. Shelke, learned Counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner was issued with the communication and since the petitioner did not remain present her name has not been considered. It is also urged before us that the entire recruitment process has been completed and the appointment orders have been issued. 4. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us no interference is called for. Moreover, the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Sunil Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2008 (5) Mh.L.J. 436, on the basis of which the petitioner was issued with the call letter has been reversed by the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Rajendra Pandurang Pagare & anr. vs. State of Maharashtra & ors., 2009 (4) Mh.L.J. 961. The Full Bench judgment (cited supra), to which one of us (P.V. Hardas, J.) was a member, had held that even for project affected persons, no back door entry was permitted and they are required to compete in that category from all candidates after an advertisement is issued in that behalf. In that light of the matter also, according to us no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 3 5. The petition accordingly fails and is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. ( S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) ( P. V. HARDAS, J.) amj/wp8457.09