FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3266 OF 2011 " Miss. Pranoti Raghunath Jadhav Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 1 Mr. C.K. Shinde, Advocate for petitioner. Mr.V.D. Godbharle,Assistant Govt. Pleader for respondent Nos.1 to 3. CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 20TH AUGUST, 2011. PER COURT :- 1] The petitioner challenges the order dated 7th April, 2011, vide which the Original Application filed by respondent No.4 has been allowed. The petitioner, as well as, respondent No.4 claimed appointment to the post of Talathi from the category reserved for OBC/Project Affected Persons ( “PAP” for short). 2] It appears that initially respondent No.4 was selected against the said category, whereas, the petitioner was put at Sr. No.1 in the waiting list. Respondent No.4 had relied on the certificate issued in favour of her husband dated 17/7/2007, for claiming the benefit under the PAP category. However, it appears that an enquiry was directed to be conducted by the concerned authority. In the mean time, the competent authority, i.e. the Rehabilitation Officer, vide his order dated 21st April, 2010 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3266 OF 2011 " Miss. Pranoti Raghunath Jadhav Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 2 finding that no one from the family of respondent No.4's husband had claimed benefit under the PAP category, transferred the said certificate in favour of respondent No.4. 3] The authorities vide order dated 8th October, 2010, cancelled the selection of respondent No.4. Respondent No.4, therefore, filed Original Application No. 890/2010, whereas, the petitioner filed Original Application No. 199 of 2011, claiming appointment of the petitioner on the post, which fell vacant due to cancellation of respondent No.4's selection. 4] The original application of respondent No.4 was allowed, whereas, that of the petitioner was disposed of as infructuous. Being aggrieved thereby, the present petition. 5] Shri Shinde, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in relying on the certificate which was issued subsequently in favour of respondent No.4. He submits that the eligibility will have to be considered on the basis of the certificate which was issued on the occasion of selection. He submits that admittedly, at that point of time, the certificate was in favour of respondent No.4's husband and not in favour of respondent No.4. He, therefore, submits that FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3266 OF 2011 " Miss. Pranoti Raghunath Jadhav Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 3 the learned Tribunal should not have allowed the original application of respondent No.4. 6] Admittedly, the cancellation of respondent No.4's selection is subsequent to the certificate which was granted in favour of respondent No.4 on 21/4/2010. The learned Tribunal has found that in the mean time, the claim of respondent No.4 regarding her claim of belonging to OBC was also pending before the authorities. Admittedly, no one else from the family of respondent No.4 has availed the benefit of belonging to PAP category. From the scheme of the Act, one member from the family is entitled to the benefit of the Government Certificate under the PAP scheme. It is not as if that respondent No.4's family is benefited more than its entitlement. 7] In that view of the matter, we do not find that the view taken by the learned Tribunal is such, which calls for interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. [M.T. JOSHI,J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/-