1 W.P.No.8685.09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8685 OF 2009 Manmath Kerba Shelke Age 30 years, Occup.Nil, R/o C/o Patil Oil Mill, Behind Dongre Niwas,Dam Road, Udgir,District Latur. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS The State of Maharashtra through its Secretary, Higher and Technical Department Mantralaya Extension Building, Mumbai and others ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri S.R.Kolhare Advocate for Petitioner. Shri V.B.Ghatge,A.G.P. for Respondent-State. Shri.A.U.Patil,Advocate for the respondent No.5., ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 7TH JUNE, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that against the advertisement issued by the respondent Nos.5 and 6, he appeared for interview as disabled person. The petitioner further alleges that he was prevented from appearing for the interview, by the management. The grievance of the petitioner is 2 W.P.No.8685.09 that the management shall follow in letter and spirit the Government Resolution dated 29th September, 2006 in respect of the appointment of disabled persons in the services. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, certain persons are working as ad-hoc employees. 3. Mr. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 has denied the allegation of the petitioner that he was prevented from appearing for the interview. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner did not appear for the interview against the said advertisement. The Institution does not dispute the propositions that the Government policies and the resolutions issued in respect of the appointment of the Staff is required to be followed and accordingly the Government Resolution dated 29th September, 2006 would also be followed, in case, the backlog or vacancy arises in Institution for appointment of disabled persons. 3 W.P.No.8685.09 4. The question as to whether the petitioner was prevented from appearing for interview is disputed, as the learned counsel for the management has denied the allegations. 5. In respect of the implementation of Government Resolution, dated 29th September, 2006, needless to mention that the same is required to be followed in letter and spirit by the management. 6. The petitioner is a person, who proposes to be considered as candidate against the post reserved for the disabled person, in case, management issue an advertisement in future. The petitioner is entitled to participate in the interview subject to eligibility conditions stipulated in the advertisement. With these observations the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] MTK 4 W.P.No.8685.09