1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3748 OF 2010 Umesh s/o Machindranath Ghaywat & ors. ..PETITIONERS VERSUS State of Mah. & ors. ..RESPONDENTS Mr M.P. Gude, Advocate for the petitioners; Mr K.J. Ghute Patil, AGP for respondents no.1 to 3; Mr A.R. Nikam, Advocate for respondent no.4. CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ DATE : 1st May, 2010 PER COURT : Learned Counsel for the petitioners seeks oral leave to amend the petition for incorporating a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus for quashing the impugned decision of the respondents, dated 23.3.2010 regarding rejection of the application of the petitioners. 2. The petitioners who were vying for appearing for the Common Entrance Test scheduled to be held on 2nd May, 2010 for the purposes of recruitment of Shikshan Sevaks on contract basis, submitted their application forms. The eligibility clause 2 which is reproduced in the advertisement requires a candidate to pass D.Ed. examination with H.S.C. However, certain relaxation is carved out in clause (2) of the advertisement. The relaxation is that in the event of regular candidates of S.T., V.J. (A), N.T. (B), N.T. (C), N.T. (D) or S.B.C. not being available, candidates who have not passed or who do not hold the requisite qualifications but belong to S.T. or V.J. (A), or N.T.(B), or N.T.(C), N.T. (D), or S.B.C. may be appointed as untrained Shikshan Sevaks on the basis of their merit in the C.E.T. A further relaxation is also carved out in respect of the candidates belonging to the said caste but who have acquired the qualification of M.C.V.C. Undisputedly, the petitioners have not passed M.C.V.C. nor do the petitioners hold the requisite qualification. 3. The case of the petitioners is that the petitioners had been appointed as untrained Shikshan Sevak in the scheme which was introduced by the Government for assistance to the educated unemployed. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the Government had issued a resolution indicating that10% reservation would be available to such candidates in posts which are not covered by the M.P.S.C. The petitioners, therefore, claim that the petitioners are entitled to be considered under the said reservation. Similar petitions have been rejected by us and for the same reasons, we dismiss the present petition 3 also. In the light of the reasons for dismissal of the other companion petitions we dismiss the present petition also. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( P.V.HARDAS ) JUDGE JUDGE amj/wp3748.10