1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2144 OF 2008 Mrs. Geetanjali Gokul Mudawadkar Age 46 years, Occupation Nil, R/o.Block No.1, C-Wing, Prathamesh Apartment, Near New S.T. Stand, Goa Road, Chiplun, District Ratnagiri ... Petitioner V/s 1. The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Higher & Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai 32 2. Mumbai University, Mumbai, through its Registrar, having office at Fort, Mumbai – 400023 3. Navkonkan Education Society at Chiplun, District Ratnagiri through its Chairman / Secretary 4. D.B.J. College, Chiplun, Dr. Datar Science, Dr. Behere Arts, Shri Pilukaka Joshi Commerce College Chiplun, District Ratnagiri Through its Principal 5. Shri Vikram Balkrishna Warang working as Lecturer, D.B.J. College Chiplun, District Ratnagiri 6. The Joint Director of Higher Education, Mumbai ... Respondents Mr. N. V. Bandiwadekar, Advocate for the Petitioner 2 Mr. V. A. Sonpal, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 and 6 Mr. B. V. Phadnis with Mr. R. A. Rodrigues, Advocates for Respondent No. 2 Mr. Harshad Bhadbhade, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 3 & 4 Mr. N. M. Ganguli, Advocate for Respondent No. 5. CORAM: J. N. Patel, & MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATE : 2nd May, 2009 JUDGMENT (Per Mrs. Mridula Bhatkar, J.) . Heard 1. By this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks relief that she be appointed as full time Lecturer in Hindi in the place of Respondent No. 5 in Respondent No. 4 College. 2. Respondent No. 3 issued advertisement dated 11-05- 2006 for various posts including one full time post for Hindi in Open category. As the Petitioner was holding requisite qualification, she applied for the said post and was given appointment on adhoc basis as full time Lecturer in Hindi. Thereafter, her services being adhoc were terminated. 3 Respondent No. 3 again on 11.08.2007 issued advertisement for one post of Hindi in Open category. In the said advertisement, 'reservation for women & disabled persons will be as per rule' was stated. The University Selection Committee interviewed 14 candidates for one post of Hindi Lecturer in Open category and the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 were amongst those candidates. University Selection Committee recommended a merit list of 3 candidates to the governing body of Respondent No. 3 Society. Petitioner was topping the said merit list and Respondent No. 5 was at Serial No. 2. However, the Petitioner did not receive the appointment order but Respondent No. 5 was given an appointment. The Petitioner made representation to the various authorities. However, it yielded no fruits and hence this Petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner was at Serial No. 1 in the merit list and despite of her better meritorious position, the Respondent No. 5 was illegally appointed for the post of full time lecturer in the subject of Hindi in the Open category. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner drew our attention to the advertisement dated 11.08.2007 issued by the Respondent No. 3 in which “reservation for women and disabled 4 persons will be as per rules” was mentioned. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner on the basis of these contents in the advertisement fortified his submissions that the Petitioner being a woman is entitled to get the benefit of the reservation and ought to have been appointed. 4. While countering the arguments, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 2 to 4 has submitted that the Respondent No. 5 is a disabled person and since he was also falling in the reserved category, he was rightly appointed on the said post. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the Government of Maharashtra has issued Government Resolution dated 29.09.2008 by which all the Universities were ordered to fill up the backlog of handicapped persons in accordance with the order of the High Court dated 30.06.2006. The State Government also ordered the Director, Higher Education, Pune vide its letter dated 22.05.2007 and 10.10.2007 to fill up the handicapped backlog on priority basis and accordingly Respondent No. 6 also informed all Government aided / non-aided colleges to fill up the handicapped backlog on priority basis, and therefore, the order of appointment of the Respondent No. 5, he being disabled, is legal and valid. 5 5. Admittedly, though the Respondent No. 5 was at Sr. No. 2 in the merit list, he being the disabled person was appointed. A Disability Certificate disclosing more than 40% permanent disability of Respondent No. 5 is produced on record. In the impugned advertisement, Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 have specifically mentioned that the reservation for women and disabled persons will be as per rule. Thus, the Petitioner being a woman and Respondent No. 5 being a disabled person, both in fact, were eligible for the appointment. Hence, the short point involved in this matter is whether the priority given to the Respondent No. 5 over the Petitioner is valid and legal or not. . The condition for reservation mentioned in the advertisement was supposed to be observed as per the rule. The rights of the handicapped / physically challenged persons are protected under The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995( hereinafter referred to as the said Act)”. Thus, the Legislature has taken a special care by enacting a separate Legislation for the handicapped / physically challenged persons. 6 In 2006, Bombay High Court in Public Interest Litigations gave directions to fill up the backlog of the appointment of the disabled persons and till then the process of selection and appointment was stayed. Pursuant to those directions, the Government adopted policy to speed up the appointment of the disabled. Thus, both the candidates i.e. the Petitioner and Respondent No. 5 fell in two horizontally separate reserved categories. In view of the implementation of the directions of this Court under the said Act, the scale tilted in favour of Respondent No. 5. Having regard to the laudable object of the said Act, the decision taken in fairness does not cause prejudice to the Petitioner as it was as per the rule and in accordance with the Law. Hence, the order of appointment of Respondent No. 5 is legal and valid. Petition stands dismissed with no order of costs. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J) (J. N. PATEL, J) mvp/-