1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 288 OF 2006 Surendra Murlidhar Kajale .. petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondent. --- Mr. D.R. Jaybhar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.B. Choudhari, Assistant Govt.Pleader for respondent No.1. Mr. V.R. Mundada, Advocate for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 22ND JANUARY, 2010. ORAL ORDER :- 1] According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, during the pendency of the petition, the MSRTC has issued yet another advertisement with a view to fill in the post wherein reservation for the project affected 2 persons is also carved out. The petitioner is claiming his consideration for appointment from the category of project affected persons. The learned counsel also submits that in response to the said advertisement, which is issued during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner has applied for the post of Assistant Traffic Inspector. The submission is, that the MSRTC should consider his claim from project affected persons category at least this time. 2] Though the petition is filed in the year 2006, the MSRTC has not been served at all till date. In the absence of MSRTC, we find ourselves unable to make any observations whatsoever. However, as according to the petitioner he has applied from the category of project affected persons, we have no iota of doubt that MSRTC, which is an instrumentality of State, would consider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law, alongwith other eligible candidates from that category. In that view of the matter, the learned counsel for the petitioner does not press this petition and the same is disposed of , as not pressed. [N.D. DESHPANDE,J.] [A.P. DESHPANDE.J.] Grt/- 3