IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L)NO.976 OF 2010 Dr (Mrs.)Chaya Ashok Kumar .. Petitioner V/s. The Maharashtra Public Service Commission .. Respondent Shri V.M.Thorat, for Petitioner. Shri G.W.Matoos, A.G.P. for Respondent. CORAM: R.M.SAVANT & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.J. (VACATION COURT) DATED: 12th MAY, 2010. P.C.: 1. Rule. 2. By consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. 3. The Petitioner belongs to Schedule Caste category, originally hailing from the State of Karnataka. The Petitioner possesses degree of MD (Microbiology) which she obtained in the year 1997. The Petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in LT Medical College to which she was appointed and which she occupied till October, 2006. The Petitioner was promoted as Associate Professor on ad-hoc basis and has been working as such till this day. 4. The Petitioner came across the advertisement dated 28th March, 2010 issued by the Respondent No.1  Public Service Commission which advertisement was issued at the instance of the Bombay Municipal Corporation inviting applications for various teaching posts in the three Municipal Medical Colleges in Bombay for various subjects. The instant Petition concerns the post of Assistant Professor in Microbiology. There were four posts of Assistant Professor available out of which three posts were earmarked for the reserved category and one for the open merit category. The Petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor earmarked for the reserved category i.e. Scheduled Caste as the Petitioner claims to be Scheduled Caste. The Petitioner appeared for the interview on 25th March, 2010 when the Petitioner was informed that the caste to which the Petitioner belongs is not identified as Scheduled Caste in the State of Maharashtra but has been identified as NT in the State of Maharashtra. The Petitioner was further informed that she would have to bring the domicile certificate evidencing that she is a resident of the State of Maharashtra for 15 years. The Petitioner on the ground that her case for the seat meant for Scheduled Caste would be rejected, has filed the present Petition claiming that since the Petitioner would not entitled be considered for the seat earmarked for Scheduled Caste, she may be considered as an open merit category candidate. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondent. It is undisputed that the Petitioner had applied for a seat earmarked for the reserved category i.e. Scheduled Caste. It is also undisputed that the Petitioners caste has not been identified as Scheduled Caste in the State of Maharashtra but as NT. It is the case of the Petitioner that she has also fulfilled the other condition in as much as the Petitioner has produced the domicile certificate evidencing her 15 years stay in the State of Maharashtra. In our view, if the Petitioner is not able to substantiate her case that she belongs to a particular reserved category in the State of Maharashtra, she would be entitled to compete for a seat in the open merit category. The mere fact that she has filled the form applying for a seat in the reserved category should not come in her way in competing with others in the open merit category. 6. The Petitioner as mentioned herein above has already been interviewed on 25th March, 2010, though the Petitioner cannot be considered for a reserved seat, her performance in the interview should be considered for a seat in the open merit category, if she otherwise fulfills all the requirements. We order accordingly. This Petition is allowed by making the Rule absolute to the afore said extent. (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (R.M.SAVANT,J.)