{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6145 OF 2010 Bhaskar s/o Vithal Jaybhaye and another Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & others Respondents Mr.S.S.Chapalgaonkar, advocate for petitioner Mr.K.G.Patil, A.G.P. for respondents no.1 to 3. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND R.M.BORDE, JJ. DATE : 15 th November, 2010 PER COURT: 1 The petitioners challenge the judgment and order passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal thereby allowing the Original Application filed by Respondent No.7. 2 Respondent No.7 had filed an Original Application challenging his non selection. In the Original Application before the learned Tribunal, present petitioners were also arrayed as Respondents No.7 and 8. {2} 3 Learned Tribunal allowed the Original Application thereby cancelling the selection of present petitioners. Being aggrieved thereby, present petition. 4 Shri Chapalgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, assails the finding of the Tribunal on two grounds, (i) that the present petitioners were not heard before the learned Tribunal had passed the order and (ii) that the Respondent No.7 herein – the original applicant was already working as Gram Sevak and as such, the Application ought not to have been entertained. 5 Insofar as first ground is concerned, undisputedly, present petitioners, who are Respondents No.7 and 8, were duly served. If the petitioners do not chose to appear before the learned Tribunal, the order of the learned Tribunal cannot be faulted with on the said ground. Insofar as second ground is concerned, merely because Respondent No.7 herein was working on some other post would not be a ground for not considering him for any other post. A citizen is always entitled to compete in other selection process if he finds that better prospects are available. Insofar as merits are concerned, the learned Tribunal had found that the reserved category candidates, who were entitled to be selected on their own merit, were obviously considered from the reserved category and they ought to have been considered as open category. The view taken by the learned Tribunal is in consonance {3} with the law laid down by Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Indira Sawhney & others Vs. Union of India & others, reported in 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217. No error is found in the approach of the learned Tribunal to warrant interference. 6 Writ Petition stands rejected. R.M.BORDE B.R.GAVAI JUDGE JUDGE adb/wp614510