FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4227 OF 2011 "Komal Narsing Chavan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 1 Mr. S.S. Thombre, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.D. Rakh,Assistant Govt. Pleader for respondent No.1. Mr. A.R. Nikam, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & R.M. BORDE, JJ. DATE :- 5TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. PER COURT :- 1] By way of present petition, the petitioner claims that though the petitioner belongs to VJ category, she has been considered as belonging to Open category. It is the contention of the petitioner that if she is considered from the VJ category, she is eligible to be appointed. 2] It is further the contention of the petitioner that though the respondents have permitted correction in so far as other 276 candidates, the same is not allowed in case of the petitioner, though the petitioner has applied for the same. 3] Perusal of the application form would reveal that she has given her category as category-9. Category-9 is “Open“ category. If the petitioner has herself chosen to appear from the open category, no fault could be found with the respondents. It may be stated that it is not mandatory that a person belonging to reserved category should claim reservation. A person, though belonging to reserved category, can always denied the benefit of FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4227 OF 2011 "Komal Narsing Chavan Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 2 reservation. It is a settled law in the case of “Indira Sawhni Vs. Union of India” that a person entitled to be appointed from open category is not to be considered against a reserved category post. The petitioner might be under over confidence seems to have chosen not to compete from reserved category. However, for the over confidence of the petitioner, the respondents can not be faulted with. 4] In so far as the allegation regarding 276 candidates is concerned, in para.5 of the affidavit in reply filed by respondent No.2, it is categorically stated that correction has been allowed only in so far as placement in horizontal reservation is concerned. For example, if a VJ category candidate who has applied for Sports category was denied appointment against a sports category, he has been considered against VJ category. However, it is to be noted that in such an eventuality, the candidate must have shown that he is a person belonging to reserved category in addition to a horizontal reservation, like sports etc. 5] Having regard to the totality of the circumstances, no case is made out for interference. Hence, the writ petition is rejected. [R.M. BORDE,J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/-