{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.272 OF 2010 The State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai & others Petitioners Versus Irfan s/o Mustafa Shaikh & others Respondents Mr.K.G.Patil, A.G.P. for petitioners. Mr.M.B.Kolpe, advocate for Respondent no.1. Mr.A.S.Bayas, advocate for Respondents No.2 to 4. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND R.M.BORDE, JJ. DATE : 15 th November, 2010 PER COURT: 1 Petitioners take exception to the order passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 26th August 2009, thereby allowing the Original Application filed by Respondent No.1. 2 Petitioner No.2 – Superintendent of Police, Osmanabad, had advertised certain posts of Police Constable. Out of the said posts, seven posts were reserved for Home Guard – open {2} category, two posts were reserved for Home Guard – Scheduled Caste, one post for Home Guard – Scheduled Tribe and one post for Home Guard – Other Backward Class category. 3 Respondent No.1 was not selected in the selection process and as such has approached the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal allowed the Original Application. Being aggrieved thereby, present petition. 4 The learned Tribunal, while allowing the Original Application, has held that insofar as horizontal reservation is concerned, the candidates from particular category are only entitled to be considered against the posts reserved for such category. It has further been held that the candidates from one category, for which horizontal reservation is provided, cannot be considered for selection against the post reserved for another horizontal reservation. The view taken by the learned Tribunal is in consonance with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & others, reported in AIR 2007 SC 3127, wherein it has been held that while filling the posts reserved for horizontal reservation, firstly the candidates from that particular category only be taken into consideration and only if there is a shortfall, then the recourse would be taken to go to another candidate for fulfilling the said quota. {3} 5 Undisputedly, Respondents herein do fall in the merit of first seven candidates from Home Guard – Open category. 6 It is further to be noted that by the impugned order of the Tribunal, no candidate is being adversely affected, inasmuch as one post was directed to be kept vacant. In that view of the matter and particularly in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case cited supra, and further that no candidate is unseated, we are not inclined to cause interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. 7 Hence, Writ Petition stands dismissed. R.M.BORDE B.R.GAVAI JUDGE JUDGE adb/wp27210