(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1780 OF 2010 Navnath Baliram Sonwane, Age : 29 years, Occupation : Nil, R/o. Devala, Taluka : Ambajogai, District : Beed. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary, Higher and Technical Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Secretary, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad. 3. The Director, College and University Development Committee, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, Aurangabad. (2) 4. Mauli Vidhyapeeth, Kaij, Through its President, Ashokrao S. Patil, Age : Major, Occupation : Nil, Taluka : Kaij, District : Beed. 5. The Principal, Saraswati College, Kaij, Taluka : Kaij, District : Beed. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. B.M. Wavalkar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent no.1. Mrs. R.R. Mane, Advocate, for respondent nos.2 and 3. Mr. D.J. Choudhari, Advocate, for respondent nos. 4 and 5. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 29TH NOVEMBER 2010 (3) COURT'S ORDER (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. The petitioner seeks an appointment order on the post of Lecturer in the respondent no.4 / College, on the ground that he is duly selected. The petitioner claims that he was interviewed and selected and, therefore, ought to have been appointed. 2. The petition is liable to be dismissed on more than one ground. Vide notification dated 11th July 2009, the University Grants Commission has prescribed clearing of NET/SET examination as a minimum eligibility for appointment of Lecturer. Admittedly, the petitioner does not possess the same. Secondly, the post, on which the petitioner claims appointment, is reserved for a candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe. Mr. D.J. Choudhari, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.4 and 5, categorically states that a duly qualified candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribe category is already appointed on the said post. 3. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (4) 4. In the result, the petition is dismissed. ( R.M. BORDE ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1780