1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7471 OF 2010 Vithal s/o. Sahebrao Jadhav, Age 25 yrs., Occu. Nil., R/o. Wadgaon (Siddeshwar), Tq. & Dist. Osmanabad. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Mahaashtra Through its Secretary Rural Development and Water Conservation Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai -32. 2. The Collector, Ahmednagar, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar. (President, District Selection Committee) 3. The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Ahmednagar. ....Respondents. Mr. M.B. Kolpe, Advocate for petitioner. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate for respondent No. 3. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND A.A.SAYED, JJ. DATED : 15th October, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER B. R. GAVAI, J.] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the communication dated 15th of June 2010, thereby rejecting the claim of 2 the petitioner for appointment as Shikshan Sevak. The rejection is on two grounds (1) that the certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, certifying his physical disability, is not in a prescribed format and (2) the select list for the post of Shikshan Sevak, which is made in 2008, has expired on 31st of May 2009. 3. We have perused the medical certificate which is annexed to the petition. The said certificate is signed by the Chairman as well as two Members of the Medical Board, Solapur. The Medical Board consists of the experts in the Government Medical College, Solapur. From the said certificate, it can be seen that the said certificate, certifies that the petitioner suffer from "Bilateral mixed hearing loss" and is "handicap above 40%". It is not in dispute that the person, who is suffering from handicap of 40% and above, would be entitled to be appointed from the physical handicapped category. When the medical certificate, duly signed by three experts in the Government Medical College, has certified that the petitioner suffers from physical handicap and it is above 40%, we see that the refusal of the appointment order to the petitioner, on the said ground, was not justifiable. If the certificate is not issued in prescribed format, the petitioner cannot be faulted with. 4. In so far as the select list being lapsed is concerned, the appointment orders were not issued to the petitioner within the stipulated period though he was duly qualified and selected. The delay 3 in not issuing an appointment order to the petitioner cannot be attributed to the petitioner. No other ground is stated in the communication impugned. 5. In that view of the matter, denial of appointment order to the petitioner is not justifiable in law. The respondent No. 3 - is, therefore, directed to issue appointment order in favour of petitioner forthwith and in any case, within four weeks from today. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. [ A. A. SAYED ] [ B. R. GAVAI ] Judge Judge ssc/wp7471.10