{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5900 OF 2009 Vandana Sitaram Sonawane Age-23 years, Occ-Household R/o Tapovan, Tq-Kannad Dist-Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The General Manager Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Vahtuk Bhavan, Dr.Anandrao Nayar Road, Mumbai Central 2. The Divisional Controller, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Dhule Division, Dhule RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.C.V.Thombre, Advocate for petitioner Mr.D.S.Bagul, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2 ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE: 29th September 2009 ORAL ORDER (PER A.V.POTDAR, J.) : 1. By the present petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of directions to respondents to permit the petitioner to appear for the interview and to {2} consider her claim for appointment on the post of Clerk cum Typist (Junior) from handicapped persons category, pursuant to the advertisement dated 27.12.2008. 2. The facts, which gave rise to file the present petition, may briefly be stated thus- It appears that the second respondent published an advertisement in local newspaper inviting applications for filling various posts, including the post of Clerk-cum-Typist (Junior), on the establishment of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (MSRTC), Dhule Division, Dhule. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for the said post. It appears that in the said advertisement, 3 % reservation was provided for physically handicapped persons. It further appears that after scrutinizing the forms, a list of eligible candidates, for calling interview, came to be prepared, which was published on the notice board of respondent No.2. The petitioner has contended that her name appeared in the said list as eligible for the post of Clerk cum Typist (Junior) from the physically handicapped persons category. It further appears that interviews were conducted by respondent No.2 on 01.08.2009. According to the petitioner, she came to know about the said interview, on 03.08.2009 when she inquired about the interviews to be held. The petitioner was informed that call letter, to appear for the interview, were already dispatched on 11.07.2009. The petitioner claimed that she made application to the second respondent for issuance of a call letter and to give her an opportunity of appearing in the interview. The application submitted by the petitioner is not considered by the respondents and hence the present writ petition came to be filed for the reliefs stated supra. {3} 3. In the affidavit in reply, filed on behalf of second respondent, it is stated that the call letters were dispatched by the second respondent on 11.07.2009 informing the candidates to appear for interview on 01.08.2009 along with requisite documents. This communication was sent to the petitioner Under Certificate of Posting. Once the call letters were dispatched by post, then it is not the responsibility of the 2nd respondent to take interview of the persons, who claim that they have not received such call letters in time. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. In support of the contentions of the respondents, the respondents have placed on record copies of call letters and certificate issued by the Postal authorities (Exhibit-R-1) showing that on 11.07.2009, the call letter was sent to the petitioner. If the petitioner had not received the call letter due to postal delay, then the respondents cannot be faulted with and that too when the interviews are complete and the recruitment process is closed. In the premise, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and this writ petition does not require any interference at the hands of this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction. Thus, the writ petition, which is sans merits, is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp5900-09