1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2739 OF 2009 1) Santoshsingh s/o Mannusingh Thakur Age: 34 Yrs., occu. Nil. r/o Pandurang Provision, Near Saraswati Temple, Mondha Road, Wasmat, District Hingoli. 2) Bhaskar s/o Shivaji Khandare Age: 30 Yrs., occu. Nil r/o c/o Shivam S.T.D., Purna Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, Tq. Wasmath, Dist. Hingoli. 3) Madhav s/o Bhimrao Wadikar Age: 29 Yrs., occu. Nil. r/o Jangamwadi, Tq. Kandhar, District Nanded. 4) Ramkisan s/o Tulshiram Haral Age: 29 Yrs., occu. Nil. r/o Khadki, Post Sakhra, Tq. Sengaon, Dist. Hingoli. 5) Ravindra s/o Laxman Wadekar Age: 20 Yrs., occu. Nil. R/o Ausa, Tq. Ausa, District Latur. - PETITIONERS VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra. Through Principal Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2) The Secretary, General Administration Deptt., Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2 3) The Collector, Hingoli, Dist. Hingoli. - RESPONDENTS ***** Mr.RR Mantri, Advocate for Petitioners; Mr.VH Dighe, AGP for Respondents. ----- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & K.U.CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 27th November, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: NARESH H.PATIL,J.) . Heard. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2) The petitioners claim to be project affected persons, having participated in the selection process undertaken consequent to the advertisement issued by the Collector, Hingoli. Five posts, according to the petitioners, were to be filled in from the category of Project Affected persons. The petitioners having participated in the selection process, on merits, they were selected. 3) According to the petitioners, the authorities did not issue appointment orders to them as there was some confusion on the part of the authorities in respect of the manner in which 3 the Project Affected persons are required to be selected. In the communication made by the District Collector, Hingoli to the secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, dated 31.12.2008, reference was made to the Judgment and order delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.6100 of 2008 dated 20.1.2009. The issue considered by the Division Bench in the said writ petition was referred to the Full Bench of this Court, which reads as under : "Whether Project Affected persons can be appointed without advertising the posts, ignoring their qualifications and merit." 4) The Full Bench answered the Reference, adopting a view that in order to ensure the equality of opportunity which is guaranteed in the matter of employment under Article 16 of the Constitution, it would be necessary that the posts reserved for project affected persons are advertised so that all the eligible candidates can submit their applications and get an opportunity to complete with others in their category. 5) The learned Counsel Shri Mantri submitted that the petitioners have participated 4 in the selection process and after competing with others they were selected on merits. The counsel further submitted that the Judgment delivered by the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Rajendra Pandurang Pagare and Ors. Vs. State of Maharshtra, reported in 2009 (4) Mh.L.J. 961, would be applicable prospectively. Even otherwise, according to the Counsel, the petitioners fulfilled the criterion laid down in the Full Bench Judgment, as they had participated in the selection process by competing the other candidates. 6) Learned AGP does not dispute that the petitioners participated in the selection process, but submitted that, in view of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the matter of Sunil Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2008 (8) Mh.L.J. 436, the Collector thought it fit to seek guidance and clarification from the Secretary of the State Government and accordingly he addressed a communication to the State Government. 7) In the facts of the case, we find that the petitioners had participated in the selection process and they were selected. But, in view of the Division Bench Judgment in the matter of Sunil Vs. State (cited supra), the Collector, 5 Hingoli rightly referred the issue to the State Government for soliciting guidance and clarification. In the light of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court (cited supra), we find that the petitioners satisfy the conditions enunciated by this Court in the matter of Rajendra Vs. State of Maharashtra (cited supra). 8) We are, therefore, of the opinion, that there shall not be any difficulty in appointing the petitioners against those posts which are reserved for the Project Affected persons. 9) We, therefore, direct the Collector to pass appropriate orders by issuing appointment orders in favour of the petitioners for the respective posts, for which they were selected. The Collector shall complete this exercise within four weeks from today. 10) Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. sd/- sd/- (K.U.CHANDIWAL) (NARESH H. PATIL) JUDGE JUDGE bdv/wp2739.09 Authentic copy (BD VADNERE,PS) 6