WP 6634/11 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6634/2011 The State of Maharashtra & others V/s Suresh Marotrao Apaswar. _______________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | Shri V.H. Dighe, AGP for petitioners. CORAM: B.R. GAVAI & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. Date: 09.09.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. The State challenges the order dated 19.10.2010 passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal thereby directing the respondent – employee to be appointed as Assistant Fodder Development Officer. Though the respondent – employee had prayed for appointment with retrospective effect, the learned Tribunal has refused the said prayer and has directed the appointment of the respondent with WP 6634/11 2 prospective effect. The respondent-employee had applied for a post of Assistant Fodder Development Officer against a seat reserved for scheduled tribe. The respondent – employee was selected, however, he was denied appointment since his caste claim was invalidated. The respondent – employee had produced the judgment dated 20.9.1994 in Writ Petition No.2979/1994 by which this Court had upheld the claim of the respondent-employee and quashed and set aside the order passed by the scrutiny committee. The learned Tribunal has found that in view of this background, once the High Court had validated the claim of the petitioner, it was not open to the authorities to question the genuineness regarding the respondent-employee’s caste claim. It has, therefore, been found that the respondent – employee was entitled to be appointed against a seat reserved for scheduled tribe. WP 6634/11 3 In any case, the learned Tribunal has further found that five posts were vacant. It has further been found that if a borrowed employee was deducted, there were six posts available. The learned Tribunal, on the contrary, protected the interest of the State by denying the appointment to the respondent – employee with retrospective effect. Hence, no interference is called for. The writ petition is rejected. (M.T. Joshi, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.) Dt/- 09.09.2011 ndk/c991117