1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 2127 OF 2010 Madhav s/o. Vishwarrao Dinde ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. N.P. Patil (Jamalpurkar), Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, A.G.P. for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mrs. Geeta Deshpande, Advocate for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED : 27th September, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : [ Per B.R. Gavai, J.] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner claims for direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) against the post reserved for Nomedic Tribe (C). 3. Undisputed facts giving rise to the present petition are as under :- The posts of Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) were advertised by the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 vide advertisement dated 18th of June 2 2009. Seventeen posts were available for Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male). Out of the said posts, two posts were available for NT (C) category. The petitioner, since was duly qualified, applied for the said post. In the written examination the petitioner stood qualified and as such, was called for oral interview. After the oral interviews were held, merit list of selected candidates came to be published. In the said list, the petitioner was shown at Serial No. 4. 4. It was, however, subsequently noticed that the candidates at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 had submitted the experience certificates, which were not found to be genuine and as such, their selection came to be cancelled. In this premise, the petitioner has approached this Court for writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the said post. 5. This Court, while issuing notice on 17th of March 2010, has granted stay in respect of appointment of vacant posts of Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male). Mr. N.P. Patil (Jamalpurkar), learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the candidates at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 were found to be disqualified and since two posts were available for NT (C) category, the petitioner is entitled to be appointed against the said two posts. 6. Mrs. Geeta Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for respondent 3 Nos. 3 and 4 submits that after the results were declared and since only two seats were reserved for NT (C) category, the waiting list, which was prepared in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 19th of October 2007, could be of only one candidate inasmuch as ceiling on 50% of available posts has been provided in paragraph No. 9 of the said resolution. She further submits that accordingly the candidates were subsequently appointed. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner was not entitled to be appointed. She further submits that in the subsequent selection process, the petitioner did not participate and as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Admittedly, in the selection process, which was conducted in the year 2009, two posts were reserved for NT (C) category. It is also undisputed that the candidates at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 were found to be disqualified on account of submission of the experience certificates, which were not genuine. It is, thus, clear that on account of disqualification of candidates at Serial Nos. 1 and 2, they were excluded from the zone of consideration. If the candidates at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 are excluded from the zone of consideration, it is only candidates at Serial Nos. 3 and 4, who are in the merit list, could have been deemed to be selected. In that view of the matter, the contention of learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 with regard to cancellation of selection process does not appeal to us. 4 8. Since two posts were reserved for NT (C) category candidates and candidates at Serial Nos. 1 and 2 were excluded from the zone of consideration on account of disqualification accrued to them, it is only the candidates at Serial Nos. 3 and 4 who were entitled to be appointed for the post of Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male). 9. In that view of the matter, we allow the petition by directing the respondents to issue appointment order to the petitioner for the post of Multi Purpose Health Worker (Male) against the seat reserved for NT (C) category within a time of six weeks from today. Rule is, therefore, made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. [ A. A. SAYED ] [ B. R. GAVAI ] Judge Judge ssc/wp2127.10