1 W.P.No.6416.08 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6416 OF 2008 Ravindra S/o Gorakhnath Mhaske Age 24 years,Occupation : Graduate- Unemployed, resident of House No. 4/17/17, Behind Dr. Laddha’s Hospital,Mill corner,Aurangabad. ...PETITIONER. 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through Secretary, Vocational Education and Training Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. (Copy to be served on the Govt. Pleader, High Court Bench at Aurangabad.) 2. The Director, Vocational Education and Training, Maharashtra State 3,Mahapalika Marg, Post Box No. 10036 3. The Deputy Director, Vocational Education & Training Regional Office Aurangabad. 4. The Assistant Director Vocational Education and Training Regional Office Aurangabad. ...RESPONDENTS. 2 W.P.No.6416.08 ... Shri.D.V.Soman, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri.V.B.Ghatge,A.G.P. for Respondents. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 29TH JUNE, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT :( PER : NARESH H.PARTIL, J.) 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of respective counsel of the parties, this petition is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage. 2. The respondent No. 2 issued an advertisement in News paper on 13.05.2008 for filling up various posts including Senior Clerk, Junior Clerk and Store Clerk. The advertisement discloses reservation kept for various categories. Certain posts were also reserved for project affected persons. The petitioner applied to the post of Junior and Senior Clerk as per reservation quota for project affected candidate. Participated in open competition, by appearing in 3 W.P.No.6416.08 examinations. According to the petitioner, he was topper in both the examinations as he secured 117 marks out of 200 marks in Junior Clerk examination and 116 marks out of 200 marks in Senior clerk’s examination. According to the petitioner, as per the examination pattern, only written examination was to be conducted and appointment was to be made as per merit. The petitioner being topper in the examination for the posts of Senior Clerk and Junior Clerk, though, was eligible to be appointed as Senior Clerk, was given appointment as Junior Clerk. Therefore, the petitioner approached this Court. 3. The respondents filed affidavit in reply. The respondent-deponent states that the petitioner is topper in both Senior Clerk and Junior Clerk’s examination. According to the respondents, one post of Senior Clerk was reserved for project affected candidate and also kept vacant. According to the respondents, the selection list is valid only for one year from the date of declaration. 4 W.P.No.6416.08 Now, one year has elapsed from the date of advertisement, therefore, the petitioner can apply against next advertisement, if issued. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Judgment of Full Bench in the matter of Rajendra Pandurang Pagare and another Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2009(4) Mh.L.J. 961. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is topper in the merit list of the project affected candidates. Therefore, there is no reason for the respondents not to appoint the petitioner as Senior Clerk. The only ground for denying the appointment as Senior Clerk is that one year is over from the date of advertisement. According to the respondents, as per the order passed by this Court on 30.01.2009, the post of Senior Clerk is kept vacant for the petitioner. 5. In the light of this, we find that the petitioner is entitled to appoint as Senior Clerk. 5 W.P.No.6416.08 The respondent Nos.1 to 4 are directed to take steps for issuing appointment order to the petitioner as Senior Clerk within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 6. The Rule is made absolute on the above terms. Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK