1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5935 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION NO.5935 OF 2003 WRIT PETITION NO.5935 OF 2003 Ranajit V. Nikam & Ors. ...Petitioners Ranajit V. Nikam & Ors. ...Petitioners Ranajit V. Nikam & Ors. ...Petitioners Vs. Vs. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Z.P.Satara ...Respondents State of Maharashtra & Z.P.Satara ...Respondents State of Maharashtra & Z.P.Satara ...Respondents ----- ----- ----- Mr.S.S.Pakale Adv. for Petitioners Mr.S.S.Pakale Adv. for Petitioners Mr.S.S.Pakale Adv. for Petitioners Mr. R.D.Rane A.G.P. for Respondents 1 & 5 Mr. R.D.Rane A.G.P. for Respondents 1 & 5 Mr. R.D.Rane A.G.P. for Respondents 1 & 5 Mr. M.B.Mehere Adv. for Respondents 2 to 4 Mr. M.B.Mehere Adv. for Respondents 2 to 4 Mr. M.B.Mehere Adv. for Respondents 2 to 4 CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATED: 13TH DECEMBER, 2005 DATED: 13TH DECEMBER, 2005 DATED: 13TH DECEMBER, 2005 P.C. P.C. P.C. . The Petitioners/candidates are eligible for . The Petitioners/candidates are eligible for . The Petitioners/candidates are eligible for consideration against seats meant for open category consideration against seats meant for open category consideration against seats meant for open category candidates. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of candidates. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of candidates. In the reply affidavit filed on behalf of the Z.P.,Satara dated 27th November 2003 it is set out the Z.P.,Satara dated 27th November 2003 it is set out the Z.P.,Satara dated 27th November 2003 it is set out that in terms of Government Resolution dated 2nd that in terms of Government Resolution dated 2nd that in terms of Government Resolution dated 2nd January 2003 and 4th March 2003 the backlog had to be January 2003 and 4th March 2003 the backlog had to be January 2003 and 4th March 2003 the backlog had to be filled in as on 30th March 2003. Based on that an filled in as on 30th March 2003. Based on that an filled in as on 30th March 2003. Based on that an advertisement was issued to fill in the said backlog. advertisement was issued to fill in the said backlog. advertisement was issued to fill in the said backlog. In paragraph 4 the details have been set out. In In paragraph 4 the details have been set out. In In paragraph 4 the details have been set out. In paragraph 5 it is set out that the quota of general paragraph 5 it is set out that the quota of general paragraph 5 it is set out that the quota of general category candidates is already filled in by the category candidates is already filled in by the category candidates is already filled in by the Z.P.Satara. In the affidavit of Mr. D.D.Adhav, Under Z.P.Satara. In the affidavit of Mr. D.D.Adhav, Under Z.P.Satara. In the affidavit of Mr. D.D.Adhav, Under Secretary the basis for selection has been set out. Secretary the basis for selection has been set out. Secretary the basis for selection has been set out. It is clear from the above affidavits that the It is clear from the above affidavits that the It is clear from the above affidavits that the selection was in respect of seats for reserved selection was in respect of seats for reserved selection was in respect of seats for reserved candidates and not open candidates. The Petitioners candidates and not open candidates. The Petitioners candidates and not open candidates. The Petitioners can have no right to those posts. It was the can have no right to those posts. It was the can have no right to those posts. It was the 2 contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the reservation cannot exceed 50%. Firstly there that the reservation cannot exceed 50%. Firstly there that the reservation cannot exceed 50%. Firstly there are no specific averments raising such a contention are no specific averments raising such a contention are no specific averments raising such a contention and even otherwise what were filled in was the and even otherwise what were filled in was the and even otherwise what were filled in was the backlog. We therefore, find no reason for backlog. We therefore, find no reason for backlog. We therefore, find no reason for interference, hence Petition is dismissed. interference, hence Petition is dismissed. interference, hence Petition is dismissed. . It is made clear that we have not dealt with . It is made clear that we have not dealt with . It is made clear that we have not dealt with the issues raised by the Petitioners in the present the issues raised by the Petitioners in the present the issues raised by the Petitioners in the present Petition on merits. Petition on merits. Petition on merits. (F.I.REBELLO J.) (F.I.REBELLO J.) (F.I.REBELLO J.) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.)