1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PEITTION NO.5583 OF 2009 Smt.Shilpa w/o Roopchand Shinde .. Petitioner Versus The Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad, Aurangabad and others .. Respondents Shri H.V.Patil, Advocate for petitioner Shri V.B.Ghatge, AGP for respondents 2 to 4 CORAM : P.V. HARDAS AND A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE : 30th September 2009 PER COURT : 1. Later on Shri Patil appears and tenders apology for remaining absent when the matter was called out. In that light of the matter this petition is restored to file by recalling of our order dismissing the petition for default. 2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by which the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 7.7.2009, in Original Application No.416 of 2008. The petitioner herein filed the aforesaid application on the ground that the petitioner was entitled to be appointed as a Police Patil for 2 village Kambalga on account of retirement of her father-in-law from the said post. It appears that a public notice dated 1.3.2008 came to be issued by respondent No.4 inviting applications from eligible candidates. It was a case of a single post being advertised and accordingly, it was reserved for Other Backward Class category. The petitioner submitted a representation to respondent No.4 claiming her appointment as a Police Patil being the daughter-in-law of the Ex-Police Patil and according to her as per the Notification dated 1.8.1991, heirs of Ex-Police Patil were entitled for giving priority for such posting. Since her application was not considered, the petitioner filed the aforesaid original application. Undisputedly, the post of Police Patil was reserved for Other Backward Class candidates and the petitioner is not a candidate belonging to Other Backward Class category. Ex facie, we find that the petitioner was not eligible to be appointed. Thereafter it appears that a submission was advanced before the Tribunal that on account of the Government policy carving out reservation of 30% for female, the post ought to have been reserved for a female candidate. The petitioner, however, could not produce the aforesaid notification before the Tribunal and in the absence of production of the aforesaid notification, the submission of the peittioner was not favourably considered by the Tribunal. 3 3. Apart from the non-production of the material, we find that it is a case of a single post being advertised and the post was reserved for Other Backward Class candidates. In that light of the matter, therefore, the 30% reservation for female could not have been claimed by the petitioner. 4. After hearing Shri H.V.Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Government Pleader for State, we do not find any merit in the petition and the petition is accordingly summarily dismissed with no order as to costs. ( A.V.POTDAR, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/5583.2009wp)