1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3056 OF 2009 Meeratai d/o.Maroti Tolsarwad, Age-27 years, Occu-NIL R/o. At Mogha, Post : Teerth, Tq.Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Agriculture Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-1 2. Divisional Selection Committee and Divisional Joint Director of Agriculture, Latur Division, Latur RESPONDENTS Mr.P.G.Rodge, learned counsel for petitioner. Mr.N.N.Jadhav, learned AGP for respondent no.1 and 2 (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 12/08/2009 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, by which the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ directing respondent no.2 to declare the result of the written test held for the 2 post of “Krishisevak” (Women) reserved for Special Backward Class candidates. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of appropriate directions to the respondent to appoint the petitioner if the petitioner is found eligible and entitled to be appointed on the said post. Other prayers made in this petition pertains to the ad interim reliefs which are prayed for by the petitioner. 2. It appears that a written examination came to be conducted on 21/12/2008. Pursuant to an advertisement which was issued by the respondents inviting applications for appointment to the various posts out of which one post of “Krishisevak” was reserved for women candidate belonging to the Special Backward Class Category. Since the petitioner was a candidate fulfilling the requisite eligibility, the petitioner submitted her application and was therefore called for the written examination. Though the written examination was held on 21/12/2008, the result of the said written examination was not declared and therefore the petitioner has filed the present petition. 3. In response to the notice issued by this court, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply. In the affidavit in reply, the respondents have admitted that the written examination came to be conducted on 21/12/2008. The respondents also claimed that the merit list of the candidates in respect of all the categories who were found eligible for oral interview was declared. It is also stated that the petitioner had secured 67.50 marks out of 200 in the written examination and therefore the petitioner was not called for oral 3 interview as he was ineligible pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 27/06/2008. By virtue of the aforesaid government resolution, a short listing criteria has been applied i.e. only those candidates who had secured 45% marks would be called for the oral interview. The candidates who had appeared in the written examination for the post of “Krishisevak” (Women) reserved for Special Backward Class category candidates were all unsuccessful in obtaining the requisite 45% marks. The affidavit in reply further discloses that the post which remain unfilled which was reserved for women belonging to Special Backward Class Category came to be filled in by the male candidate belonging to the Special Backward Class category. 4. Shri.Rodge, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the advertisement does not in any manner indicate that the candidates securing less than 45% marks would not be called for interview and therefore this short listing is not permissible though sanctioned in the Government Resolution. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the post could not have been filled in if the candidates for which the post was reserved were un-available. In other words, it is urged before us that if the respondents found that there were no suitable candidates from the category of Special Backward Class (Women), the post ought not to have been filled in by appointing a male candidate from the category of Special Backward Class. 5. The aforesaid submissions do not find place in the writ 4 petition. This writ petition is restricted to issuance of a writ for declaring the results. The respondents have uniformally applied the short listing criteria and therefore there is no unreasonableness in the application of the said criteria. It is not necessary that the short listing criteria should be disclosed in the advertisement so long as it is uniformally applied to all the candidates. There is an averment in the affidavit in reply that the short listing criteria has been uniformally applied to all the candidates. The petitioner had not secured the requisite 45% marks and therefore the petitioner was ineligible to be considered for appointment. The petitioner has also not challenged the appointment of the male candidate to the post which was reserved for female candidate. In absence of either the requisite challenge or the concerned candidate being party to the petition, the aforesaid submissions can not be entertained. We also find that there are no pleadings in this behalf. 6. Since the petitioner had not secured the requisite 45% marks, the respondents were under no obligation to call the petitioner for oral interview. In the light of that there is no merit in the petition. Therefore, this petition is summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/AUGUST 2009/3056-09