1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.596 OF 2009 Rahul Ramrao Waghmare - PETITIONER VERSUS 1) Yeshwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, Nashik and Ors. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.SB Talekar, Advocate for Petitioner; Mr.SS Bora, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. ----- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 10th December, 2009. PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The petitioner is a graduate in Arts. He was initially appointed as Junior Assistant for three months at Nanded Regional Centre of the Yeshwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University (for short, the university) on 1st April, 2004. According to the petitioner, the services of the petitioner were continued after every three months with a technical break of a day. The 2 petitioner had even requested to continue his services on daily/ad hoc basis by communication dated 2nd January, 2006. There was enough work to appoint two Junior Assistants on permanent basis at Nanded Regional Centre. The Director had recommended the case of the petitioner to continue his services as Junior Assistant by giving six monthly appointment orders. The petitioner continued to work accordingly from 2004 onwards. It is contended by the petitioner that the Regional Director orally informed him that his services would be dispensed with from 1.12.2008 since two posts of Junior Assistants; seven posts of Assistants; and four posts of Section Officers were being advertised soon. The petitioner’s services came to be dispensed with w.e.f. 1.12.2008 vide letter dated 17.12.2008. 3) The University published an advertisement for 21 non-teaching staff. Out of those 21 posts, 14 posts were reserved for S.C.; S.T.; N.T.; O.B.C. and S.B.C.. Out of 7 posts available for General category, 2 posts would be filled in from amongst physically handicapped candidates. According to the petitioner, out of 7 posts of Assistants advertised by the University, 1 post is available for General category and both the posts of Junior Assistants advertised by the University were reserved one 3 each for N.T.-D and O.B.C. category and as such, no post is available to be filled in from the General category candidates. 4) Learned Counsel Shri Talekar, therefore, submitted that the reservation pattern adopted by the University was in violation of the reported judgment in the matter of Indra Sawhney and Ors. Vs. Union of India – 1992 Supp (3) SCC 210. 5) The Respondent No.1 filed affidavit in reply. It was contended by the deponent that the petitioner has worked purely on temporary basis. The University has many more posts than the posts shown in the advertisement and the university is required to maintain roster to fill in the posts and such roster is checked by the competent authorities in the Government. Reliance was placed by the learned Counsel on reported Judgment in the matter of M.Nagaraj & Ors. Vs. Union of India – AIR 2007 SC 71. The learned Counsel for the university submits that the petitioner did not participate in the selection process and the posts are filled in against the seats advertised on 26.11.2008. 6) Considering the reply filed by the respondent/university and the submissions advanced, prima facie, we do not find that the 4 University committed any error in issuing the advertisement for the posts. The reservation policy/pattern, according to the University, was rightly adopted in view of the roster which was checked up by the Competent Authority and thereafter the advertisement was issued. Prima facie, we do not find that the petitioner has made out any case for exercising our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. The petition, therefore, stands dismissed. (K.U.CHANDIWAL) (NARESH H. PATIL) JUDGE JUDGE bdv/wp596.09 fldr.7.12.09