1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.580 Of 2009 Ramesh S/o Pundlik Kamble. .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents -------- Shri. H.K. Munde, Advocate for petitioner. Smt. Y.M. Kshirsagar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri. V.S. Panpatte, Advocate for respondent No.3. Shri. S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Advocate for respondent No.4. Shri. H.I. Pathan, Advocate for respondent No. 5. ------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE: 5th AUGUST 2010 2 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The petitioner’s contention is that he had applied for the posts of Agriculture Officer and Extension Officer. A combined written test was held for the posts of Agriculture Officer and Extension Officer by the Zilla Parishad. This examination was held through the Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Limited (“MKCL”). The petitioner topped in the written examination. The petitioner was interviewed on 6-11-2008 whereas, the respondent No.5 was interviewed on 8-7-2008. 3) The petitioner was not appointed either as Agriculture Officer or Extension Officer. Therefore this writ petition was filed on 18-12-2008. By an order dated 15th July 2010 we directed the Assistant Government Pleader to forward copy of the order to the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department. 3 4) The learned counsel appearing for the Zilla Parishad, Mr. V.S. Panpatte submitted that one employee of the Zilla Parishad, who was working as Extension Officer from open category, had resigned. Though one post is vacant the petitioner cannot be appointed as the petitioner belongs to reserved category. The learned counsel, on instructions, submits that five posts of Extension Officer are vacant but those are promotional posts. The petitioner cannot be accommodated even on those posts. The respondent No.5, who has been appointed as Extension Officer contends that it is not his fault for non appointment of the petitioner. 5) We observe that, the State authorities are required to issue appropriate instructions to the MKCL, to look into their functioning and devise methods so that complete transparency and competency is exhibited in the functioning of the MKCL. This is necessary to avoid instances of this 4 nature in future. A person’s career would also be at stake if slight mistake is committed by the screening authorities. 6) The petition is disposed of with observations that the petitioner is entitled to file a fresh representation to the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded in this regard. Sd/- Sd/- (K.K. TATED, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.580.09