1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1116 OF 2006 Rohit Radhekrishna Yadav ... Petitioner Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. ... Respondents Ms. Aradhana V. Latne for Petitioner. Mr. Niranjan Pandit, A.G.P. for Respondents. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO REBELLO REBELLO & MRS.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. MRS.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. MRS.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,JJ. DATE : 19TH JUNE, 2006 DATE : 19TH JUNE, 2006 DATE : 19TH JUNE, 2006 P.C.: . The father of the Petitioner was born in the state of U.P. He came to Bombay in the year 1970. The Petitioner claims admission as O.B.C. The law is now well settled that the migrant is not entitled to reservation in the state of migration but is entitled to the protection in the state of origin. The learned counsel for the Petitioner seeks to draw our attention to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Curt in Writ Petition No. 317 of 2000 decided on 7th December, 2000 in Jairam Yadav Vs. M.S.E.B. and others. In that case, the father of the Petitioner therein had migrated to state of Maharashtra in the year 1954 from U.P. It is based on this fact that the learned Division Bench there held that the Petitioner was entitled for the benefits of reservation in the state of Maharashtra. In this case, the father of the Petitioner has 2 migrated in the year 1970. The State of Maharashtra was constituted on 1.5.1960. In these circumstances, we are clearly of the opinion that the order the committee rejecting the case of the Petitioner cannot be faulted with. Petition dismissed. . Time to pay costs, extended by further period of one week from today. (F.I.REBELLO, (F.I.REBELLO, (F.I.REBELLO, J.) J.) J.) (MRS.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (MRS.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (MRS.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)