1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3094 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.3094 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.3094 OF 2005 Mr. Deoram Digambar Aher ...Petitioner Mr. Deoram Digambar Aher ...Petitioner Mr. Deoram Digambar Aher ...Petitioner Vs. Vs. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ----- ----- ----- Mr. V.S. Deokar Adv. with Mr. Bedekar Adv. for Mr. V.S. Deokar Adv. with Mr. Bedekar Adv. for Mr. V.S. Deokar Adv. with Mr. Bedekar Adv. for Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Mr. G.S. Sonawane, A.G.P. for Respondents Mr. G.S. Sonawane, A.G.P. for Respondents Mr. G.S. Sonawane, A.G.P. for Respondents CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. CORAM: F.I.REBELLO & ROSHAN DALVI, JJ. DATED: 18TH NOVEMBER, 2005 DATED: 18TH NOVEMBER, 2005 DATED: 18TH NOVEMBER, 2005 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 1. Rule. Heard forthwith. 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the 2. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Respondents are not granting approval for his Respondents are not granting approval for his Respondents are not granting approval for his appointment on the ground that there is a backlog. appointment on the ground that there is a backlog. appointment on the ground that there is a backlog. 3. Considering the provisions of MEPS Rules this 3. Considering the provisions of MEPS Rules this 3. Considering the provisions of MEPS Rules this Court has taken the ratio as 34%. Respondent No.2 Court has taken the ratio as 34%. Respondent No.2 Court has taken the ratio as 34%. Respondent No.2 therefore, to consider the backlog bearing in mind 34% therefore, to consider the backlog bearing in mind 34% therefore, to consider the backlog bearing in mind 34% reservation and if there is no backlog and of the reservation and if there is no backlog and of the reservation and if there is no backlog and of the petitioner is otherwise eligible to grant approval. petitioner is otherwise eligible to grant approval. petitioner is otherwise eligible to grant approval. Before passing the order Respondent No.2 to hear the Before passing the order Respondent No.2 to hear the Before passing the order Respondent No.2 to hear the Petitioner and the Management represented by Petitioner and the Management represented by Petitioner and the Management represented by Respondents 5 & 6 and pass appropriate orders Respondents 5 & 6 and pass appropriate orders Respondents 5 & 6 and pass appropriate orders accordingly. The decision to be given within 12 weeks accordingly. The decision to be given within 12 weeks accordingly. The decision to be given within 12 weeks from today. from today. from today. 2 4. Rule made absolute accordingly, no order as to 4. Rule made absolute accordingly, no order as to 4. Rule made absolute accordingly, no order as to costs. costs. costs. 5. Petitioner to appear before the Respondent 5. Petitioner to appear before the Respondent 5. Petitioner to appear before the Respondent No.2 on 30th November 2005 at 11.00 a.m. No.2 on 30th November 2005 at 11.00 a.m. No.2 on 30th November 2005 at 11.00 a.m. (F.I.REBELLO J.) (F.I.REBELLO J.) (F.I.REBELLO J.) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.) (ROSHAN DALVI, J.)