1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3138/2010 ( Anagha Shashank Badge -: versus :- The Chairman, District Selection Committee, Washim & others ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri J.R. Kidilay, Adv. for petitioner. Shri A.M. Ghare, Adv. for respondent no.4/caveator. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 15, 2010. Heard Adv. Shri Kidilay for petitioner and Adv. Shri Ghare for respondent no.4. The perusal of orders of Grievance Committee clearly show that Grievance Committee has found respondent no.4 better placed than present petitioner. Contentions of Adv. Shri Kidilay that respondent no.4 was not called for interview and petitioner was the second candidate called for interview against post reserved for ladies. One Surekha was selected against open post reserved for ladies. Manish Shankarrao Gawande having more merit than her was selected against other open post. As Manish did not join, the selected lady candidate Surekha below occupies post of Manish. Therefore, post of Surekha (open post reserved for ladies) becomes available and petitioner is entitled to occupy it. It is clear that the respondent no.4 was not called for interview but then that does not mean that petitioner gets entitlement to occupy a reserved post. The merit list prepared shows the name of respondent no.4 at serial no.4 and name 2 of present petitioner at serial no.7. The reservation for women is horizontal reservation and hence as Surekha became available that reservation stood exhausted. There is no question of that reservation of being carried further. The Grievance Committee, therefore, has correctly found that the present respondent no.4 had better claim than petitioner. Adv. Shri Kidilay states that he is not aware whether after the vacancy became available, respondent no.4 was again interviewed or not by the Committee. Adv. Shri Ghare states that he was so interviewed and has been also given an appointment order and started working. The perusal of impugned order of Grievance Committee shows that the employer had moved Commissioner, Amravati Division Amravati, recognizing the name of respondent no.4. Writ petition is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE Tambaskar.