1 wp7201.07 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7201 OF 2007 Bhausaheb Gangadhar Padval ...Petitioner VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents W I T H WRIT PETITION NO. 7237 OF 2007 Babasaheb Gangadhar Borhade ...Petitioner VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Shri S.T.Shelke, advocate for the petitioners Shri V.D.Godbharle, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2 Respondent nos. 3 and 4 served ..... CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND SHRIHARI P.DAVARE, JJ. DATED : 3rd December, 2010 2 wp7201.07 PER COURT : 1 The petitioners are project affected persons. They claim that they were issued certificates in the prescribed form referring them to be project affected persons. In their capacity, the petitioners were entitled to be considered for appointment to suitable posts advertised by the State/Departments. 2 The Collectorate of Ahmednagar District had issued an advertisement for recruiting the posts of Talathi. The Collectorate adopted a method of short listing of the candidates based on their obtaining marks in the S.S.C. Examination. In the short listed candidates, the petitioners did not find their place. The candidates short listed were interviewed and appointment orders were issued and the appointed candidates are made parties to the proceedings of this petition. 3 Learned counsel Shri Shelke submits that the Collectorate wrongly followed the Government Resolution dated 9.6.2004, which has caused prejudice to the petitioners cases. The Collectorate ought to have followed the Government Circular dated 13.9.2000, which is annexed to the petition. It is submitted that the Collectorate 3 wp7201.07 did not hold written test of the candidates. The candidates belonging to project affected category were simply interviewed and straight way appointment orders were issued. 4 Respondents filed affidavit in reply. It is contended by the Deponent that one post of Talathi was reserved for project affected persons category. Under the Government Resolution dated 9.6.2004, the Collectorate was entitled to select candidates based on the marks secured by the candidates in the prescribed (S.S.C.) examination and the marks obtained (25) in oral interview by the candidates. Accordingly, respondent no.2 called three candidates for interview, for being appointed from the category of project affected persons, from amongst the candidates short listed on the basis of the marks obtained in the S.S.C. examinations. In the S.S.C. Examination, the third candidate obtained 83.6 per cent marks; the petitioner Balasaheb secured 46.84 per cent marks and petitioner Bhausaheb secured 48.41 per cent marks, and therefore, as the petitioners were having less marks than the third candidate, they were not called for interview. 5 The petitioners approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal by an order dated 14.9.2007 rejected the request for grant of interim 4 wp7201.07 relief. By an order dated 3.10.2007 the petitions came to be finally disposed of by the Tribunal in terms of interim order. 6 Learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that in accordance with the policy prevailing at the relevant time, the Collectorate, Ahmednagar short listed the candidates, held the interviews and appointed deserving persons to the post. 7 We have perused the impugned orders, reply and the Government Resolution dated 9.6.2004 and Government Circular dated 13.9.2000. 8 The selection process was undertaken three years back. The petitioners could not be interviewed, as they secured less marks than the short listed candidates. The posts were filled in by conducting written examinations and by holding oral interviews, as per marks obtained by them in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 9.6.2004. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Pandurang Pagare and another vs State of Maharashtra and others, 2009 (4) Mh.L.J. 961 considered the issue in respect of the rights of the candidates holding certificates of project affected persons and their appointments in Government 5 wp7201.07 service. The project affected persons now would participate and compete in the selection process from the category of candidates to the post reserved for project affected persons. The petitioners are also entitled to participate in the selection process whenever next advertisement is issued. 9 In the light of these facts, circumstances and the subsequent developments, we are not inclined to interfere into the matter by exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction. 10 The petitions stand dismissed. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (NARESH H.PATIL, J.) dbm/wp7201.07