wp7969.10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7969 OF 2010 Ku. Seema d/o Bhanudas Bhosale & another .. PETITIONERS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. M.B. Kolpe, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Tambe, AGP for the State. Mr. K.S. Bhore, advocate for respondent no. 4. ===== CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE : 8 th DECEMBER, 2010 PER COURT : 1 By way of present petition the petitioner impugns the judgment and order passed by the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal thereby rejecting the original application filed by the present petitioner claiming employment from the category of project affected persons. 2 It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent nos. 3 to 5 were wp7969.10 2 less meritorious than the petitioner and inspite of that they were selected. Mr. Kolpe, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in view of Government Resolution dt. 16-3-1999, procedure is prescribed for the purpose of filling in horizontal reservation. He submits that appointment of respondent nos. 3 to 5 have been made contrary to the provisions of said Government Resolution and as such, the appointments are liable to be set aside. He further submits that in accordance with the Government policy, 30% reservation ought to have been provided for woman category even in the category of project affected persons and even if that would have been done, the petitioner would have been selected. 3 The Division Bench of this court in Writ Petition no. 7472/2007 had laid down that insofar as the appointments from the category of project affected persons are concerned, the same are required to be made purely on the basis of seniority of the candidates in the waiting list. In pursuance to the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this court, the Government had no option than to issue the Government Resolution directing that the appointments from project affected persons category will have to be made purely on the basis of the seniority list maintained by the respective wp7969.10 3 Collectors. Undisputedly, respondent nos. 3 to 5 are senior to the petitioner in the waiting list maintained by the Collector. Insofar as the Government Resolution on which learned counsel for the petitioner relies is concerned, it applies to all the horizontal reservations. 4 When a Government Resolution and a judgment of this court are in conflict with each other, the Government has no option than to follow the judgment of the Division Bench of this court. 5 No doubt, subsequently vide judgment and order dt. 9-7-2009 the Larger Bench of this court in the case of Rajendra Pandurang Pagare Vs. The State of Maharashtra reported in M.L.J. 2009(4) 961 has held that the view taken by the Division Bench was inconsistent with the constitutional mandate. However, the appointments which were made prior to delivery of the judgment by Full Bench of this court, the appointments would be governed by the law as it existed i.e. the law laid down by the Division Bench. Undisputedly, appointments of respondent nos. 3 to 5 have been made prior to 9-7-2009 i.e. the date on which the Full Bench has delivered judgment. wp7969.10 4 6 In that view of the matter, no merit is found in the petition. Petition is therefore dismissed. ( R. M. BORDE ) ( B. R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE dyb