Farad Continuation Sheet IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 791 OF 2011 SWATI NAVNATH GADEKAR VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHRASHTRA AND ORS ... Advocate for Petitioner(s) : Shri Nangare Prashant R. AGP for Respondent(s): Shri Suryavanshi K.M. Advocate for Respondent(s) : Shri Kulkarni Bhushan B. ... CORAM : D B BHOSALE & S B DESHMUKH, JJ. Dated: August 10, 2011 ... 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner, in this petition, has made the following prayers :- "(B) By issuing appropriate writ, to quash and set aside the letter dated 9.11.2010 issued by the Education Officer Zilla Parishad Jalna and disability certificate dated 8.9.2010 issued by the President Medical Board, Government College and Hospital, Aurangabad. (C) By issuing writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ the respondents may kindly be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Shikshan Sevak from Handicap Low Vision category by conducting only physical ability test as per the Government Circular dated 16th May 2009. (D) The respondent no.3 may kindly be directed that, not to fill one post of Shikshan Sevak till pending hearing and final disposal of this Writ Petition." 3. The petitioner has made these prayers on the basis of the Government Circular dated 16.5.2009. The petitioner has also placed reliance upon disability certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, General Hospital, Ahmednagar to claim that she is having 40% visual disability. We have perused the Government Resolution (2) WRIT PETITION NO. 791 OF 2011 Farad Continuation Sheet IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD dt.3.8.2010 placed on record by the learned AGP. From bare perusal of this resolution, it is clear that the circular dated 16.5.2009 has been cancelled by the said Resolution. Insofar as percentage of visual disability is concerned, the petitioner was referred to the Medical Board at Government Medical College and Hospital, Aurangabad, which, after examining the petitioner, issued the certificate stating that she is having 30% visual disability. Difference between the two certificates is of 10%. Insofar as the certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon is concerned, in that certificate it is mentioned that it was not for Court use. That apart, having regard to the difference of percentage between the two certificate, so also the Government Resolution dated 3.8.2010, the prayers in the Writ Petition, in our opinion, cannot be granted. 4. Hence, the Writ Petition fails and dismissed as such. ( S B DESHMUKH, J. ) ( D B BHOSALE, J. ) ... akl