18.wp.17-10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITON NO.17 OF 2010 Rajesh Hirabrao Rane. ..Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra and another. ..Respondents. ... Mr.S.A. Vaidya, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.S.R. Nargolkar, AGP, for Respondent No.1. Mr.R.D. Rane, Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH & A.R. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 02, 2010. P.C. 1. By this Petition, the petitioner challenges the communication dated 6.8.2009 whereby the petitioner has been informed that he could not be selected for appointment to the post of Extension Officer (Education) because he stood at Sr.No.3 and the two other candidates who have been appointed have 100 marks. 2. The advertisement issued by the Zilla Parishad shows that there were two vacancies in the post of Extension Officer (Education) – one was reserved for OBC and one was for Open. There was a note made that if the candidate is 18.wp.17-10 2 handicapped preference will be given. But, after the examination (written and oral) was over, it was found that there is no equality in marks and the petitioner has secured 95 marks whereas the other candidates have 100 or more marks and, therefore, they were appointed. 3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that there is reservation in favour of handicapped persons which has not been mentioned in the advertisement. Perusal of the Government Resolution shows that only 3% of the posts are to be reserved for handicapped persons. The vacancies advertised were only two. Obviously therefore there could not have been any reservation for the handicapped persons. Therefore, the Zilla Parishad decided to give preference to them, obviously in case, there was equality of marks. We do not find any illegality. Petition is rejected. (D.K. DESHMUKH,J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)