 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO: 438/2009 ( Dr. Shahaji Sambhaji Phand vs State of Maharashtra and others) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram Court's or Judges Order appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. ................................................................................................................................... CORAM: D.D.SINHA & A. P. BHANGALE , JJ. DATED: 06th February, 2009. *** 1. Heard Mr R S Charpe, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. K S Joshi, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondent- State. 2. Grievance of the petitioner is in respect of the advertisement dated 5.2.2007 for filling up several posts. The petitioner is concerned with the post of Assistant Professor, Veterinary and Animal Husbandry Extension, as well as communication dated 12.5.2008 issued by Registrar, Maharashtra Animal & Fisheries Science University, Nagpur. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a physically challenged person having 55% disability. It is contended that in the said advertisement, the respondent-University has not specifically mentioned about reservation for the handicapped category persons. It is submitted that though the petitioner has applied from the handicapped category, the claim of the petitioner was ignored without any justification.  3. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the counsel and perused the communication dated 12.8.2008 issued by the Registrar, Maharashtra Animal & Fisheries Science. The Selection Committee recommended three candidates from Open category keeping one post vacant since the Committee did not recommend the candidate for want of suitability. In view of these basic facts, it appears that the Committee has recommended three candidates from the Open category those who are found to be suitable, one post was not filled in for want of suitable candidates and, therefore, grievance of the petitioner that his claim was not considered appears to be not correct. 4. Consequently, no case is made out for showing indulgence. Writ Petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE sahare