acd 1 WP.7289-2010.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION. WRIT PETITION NO. 7289 OF 2010. The Depeuty Director, Town Planning & Ors. ... Petitioners. V/s Vitkar Bharat Balasaheb & Anr. ...Respondents. --- Mr. A.B. Vagyani, AGP for the Petitioners. Mr. Pratap Patil, for Respondent No.1. CORAM: B.H.MARLAPALLE AND U.D. SALVI, JJ. December 15, 2010. PC: 1] Heard Mr. Vagyani, the learned AGP for the Petitioners and Mr.Patil, the learned Counsel for respondent no.1. 2] This Petition is directed against an order dated 21.6.2010 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, thereby allowing Original Application No.851 of 2009 filed by the present respondent no.1 (applicant). By the said order, the petitioners have been directed to appoint the applicant for the post of Draughtsman (Tracer) reserved for a sportsman in Pune Region acd 2 WP.7289-2010.sxw of the Town Planning and Valuation Department of Government of Maharashtra within six weeks from the date of the said order and by cancelling the appointment of respondent no.3 (present respondent no.2). We are informed that present the respondent no.2 since then has resigned and thus the post of Draughtsman (Tracer) has fallen vacant, as of now. 3] On 26.03.2008, a proclamation was released in the local newspapers inviting applications for the post of Junior Clerk, Draughtsman, Driver etc. and 14 posts of Draughtsman (Tracer) were to be filled in. Out of these 14 posts, 7 posts were for the reserved category and balance 7 posts were to be filled in from the open category, details whereof are as under:- Sr.No. Category Number of Vacant Horizontal Posts Reservation ---------- ----------- --------------------------- -------------- 1. ST 1 Woman by priority. 2. VJ(A) 1 ) 3. NT(B) 1 ) 1 Woman by priority. 4. NT(C) 1 ) 5. SBC 1 -- 6. OBC 1 1 Woman & 1 Ex- serviceman by priority. 7. Open 7 3 Women, 1 PA/EA, 2 Ex- servicemen & 1 sportsman by priority. acd 3 WP.7289-2010.sxw 4] It is thus evident that one post in the open category was reserved for sportsman. However, the present respondent no.2 came to be appointed on the 7th post in the open category because he had secured more marks than the applicant, despite the fact that respondent no.2 was not a sportsman. It is under these circumstances, the applicant approached the Tribunal challenging the appointment of respondent no.2 and praying for directions to appoint him in place of the said respondent. The Tribunal noted that the applicant secured 112 out of 200 marks as against 135 marks secured by respondent no.2, who in fact belongs to VJ(A) but not a sportsman. The Tribunal considered the affidavit in reply filed by the Deputy Director of Town Planning and Valuaton Department, Pune Division, and noted that the applicant had secured more than the bench mark i.e. 45% and he had already been successful in the professional tests as well as oral test and secured overall more than 50% marks i.e. 112 out of 200. In the 7th post filled in from the open category there was not a single sportsman though it was mentioned in the advertisement that one post was reserved for the said special category. It referred to the Government Circular dated 16.03.1999 and held that the applicant ought to have been appointed against the post reserved for a sportsman in the open category and therefore, the Application has been allowed. acd 4 WP.7289-2010.sxw 5] We have heard Mr. Vagyani, the learned AGP for the petitioners and perused the reasons set out in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. We do not find any reason to interfere with the same, and more so when respondent no.2 has already resigned and vacated the said post. 6] Hence, this Petition fails at the threshold and the same is rejected. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B.H.MARLAPALLE, J.)