 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO: 4104/2008 (Jitesh Govindrao Matre 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: 24th February, 2009. *** 1. Heard Shri R V Gaikwad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri D.P. Thakare, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents. 2. This Writ Petition is directed against the impugned order dated 4th August, 2008 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal ( in short, “the Tribunal”) whereby, the Original Application filed by the petitioner came to be rejected. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the approach of the Tribunal is basically wrong and the claim of the petitioner came to be rejected on the ground of non-availability of post is also unfounded. It is contended that petitioner has applied for the post of Statistical Assistant from the Scheduled Caste category as well as from Project affected persons category. It is contended that since the petitioner was belonging to Scheduled Caste category, the respondents could not have declared two posts of Senior Clerk  (Statistics) surplus on account of abolition of posts. It is, therefore, contended that the order of the Tribunal is based on misconception of law and, therefore, cannot be sustained in law. 3. Mr D P Thakre, learned Assistant Government Pleader, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and submitted that vide Government Resolution dated 21.1.2006 only one post of Statistical Assistant was sanctioned out of then three existing posts; as a result of which the employees working on those posts were required to be declared surplus and, on the other post, one Mrs.Bhojane was already working. It is contended that in such a situation, for want of availability of post, the petitioner could not be given order of appointment. However, it is contended that so far as the claim of the petitioner from project affected category is concerned, the name of the petitioner is at Sr.No.934 in the list maintained by the concerned Collector and, therefore, as and when the claim of the petitioner matures, it will be considered. 4. In the backdrop of above-referred facts, it is evident that after change in the staffing pattern, the cadre of Statistical Assistant was abolished and it was re-designated as Senior Clerk (Stat). Hence, in view of the above-referred facts, at the relevant time there was only one sanctioned post which was already occupied by Mrs. Bhojane. In such circumstances, the conclusion recorded by the Tribunal, in our view, needs no interference. Writ  Petition is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE sahare