1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1122 OF 2009 Smt. Vaishali w/o Babulal Bhamre, Age: 29 years, Occ: Umemployed, R/o.C/o. D.R. Raut, Shivshakti Washing Centre, Khultabad Road, Phulambri, Dist.Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Rural Development Department, Mantralaya Mumbai-32 and others. ...RESPONDENTS ... Shri. R.S. Shinde, Advocate for petitioner. Shri.V.B.Ghatge, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. V.R. Sonwalkar, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 9TH JUNE, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2 2. The petitioner had applied against the post of Madhyamik Chitrakala, in pursuant to the advertisement dated 02-04-2008. The petitioner's contention is that her selection ought to have been done on the basis of selection process attributable to the candidates who were to be appointed as Shikshan Sevak (Secondary) and not Shikshan Sevak (Special). 3. Learned Counsel for the Zilla Parishad submits that the petitioner's case falls under clause-2 of Government Resolution dated 20-05-2004 as the petitioner had applied for Shikshan Sevak (Special) i.e. A.T.D. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in past, Zilla Parishad selected the candidates based on total marks obtained in written examination, whereas in the case of the petitioner, Zilla Parishad desires to scan the selection process by considering the written and 3 practical marks. 5. Considering the facts of the case, advertisement, Government Resolution and the application made by the petitioner, we do not find any error in the approach of the Zilla Parishad in selecting the candidates who had applied for special subject like Shikshan Sevak A.T.D. It is informed to this Court that rest of the posts are filled in. The selection process is over. Under the orders of this Court, one post was kept vacant and accordingly, Zilla Parishad had complied with the said order and kept one post vacant. We are not inclined to accept the request of the petitioner. We find no merit in the case of the petitioner and hence, the writ petition is dismissed. 6. Interim relief granted earlier, is vacated. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] sut/JUNE10/wp1122.09 4