1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1596 OF 2010 Ramesh T. Barapatre ...Petitioner v/s Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal Corporation ...Respondents Mr R.K. Mendadkar for Petitioner. Mr V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND A.R. JOSHI JJ. DATE : 9TH MARCH 2010. 2 P.C. :- 1] Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed against the seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe candidate. Admittedly, the petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be continued in a seat which was meant for Scheduled Tribe candidate. Continuance of the petitioner in the seat reserved for Scheduled Tribe would mean defeating the policy of reservation of posts for Scheduled Tribe candidates. The petitioner cannot be treated as open category candidate because the petitioner never competed for a open seat and therefore, continuing the petitioner in the same post will result in denial of right of equality guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is implicit in Article 14 of the Constitution of India that before making appointment to an open seat, availability of that seat should be advertised so that every person who is eligible to apply for that seat gets an opportunity to apply for that seat. If the 3 petitioner is permitted to occupy a seat meant for an open category candidate, it will defeat the above referred mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In our opinion, looking at the matter from any point of views, the petitioner cannot be continued in the post. There is no substance in the petition. It is rejected. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. ( JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH ) ( JUSTICE A.R. JOSHI )