1 Writ Petition No.1418 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.1418 OF 2011 Kaveri d/o Vithalrao Chavan. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra And Others. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. Prakash G. Gunale, Advocate for petitioner. Smt. A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader for respondents. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 3rd MARCH 2011 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) The petitioner in fact has filed three writ petitions. Writ Petition No.6192 of 2010 was withdrawn today. In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs. 2 Writ Petition No.1418 of 2011 (A) Rule may please be issued; Record and proceedings may please be called for; (B) It may please be held and declared that there shall be 30% horizontal reservation for women in Open category including PAP Category as per the Govt. Circular dated 16th March, 1999 issued by respondent no.3 and consequently, the petitioner was/is eligible for her selection and appointment to the posts of Clerk-cum-Typist and Talathi either against 30% reservation for Open (women) or against 30% reservation for women in PAP Category as per the recruitments undertaken by the respondent nos.4 and 5 in the years 2007 and 2009; (C) By a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction in the like nature, the respondents may please be directed to appoint the petitioner on the vacant posts i.e. Clerk-cum-Typist or Talathi against 30% reservation for Open (women) or against reserved post for Open (PAP) category on the establishment of the respondent no.5." 3) The third writ petition is Writ Petition No.1136 of 2010, which is called for reference purpose, wherein the petitioner sought direction to recall order dated 27th November 2009 passed in Writ Petition No.2739 of 2009 and seeks directions to set aside the selection of respondent Nos.5 and 6 therein along with other prayers. 3 Writ Petition No.1418 of 2011 4) As the petitioner sought relief of appointment in the posts of Clerk/Typist and Talathi, the petition is not maintainable. The petitioner has alternate forum i.e. Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal for redressal of her grievances. Even otherwise, we are not inclined to entertain this petition in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5) In case the petitioner approaches the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal within two weeks the pendency of this petition would be a ground for the petitioner, while seeking condonation of delay. 6) The writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- Sd/- (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl