(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 4445 OF 2010 1. Savita d/o. Dhondibarao Vasmate, Age about 21 years, Occupation : Student, R/o. Lohagaon, Taluka : Biloli, District : Nanded. 2. Priyanka d/o. Vithal Nerkar, Age about 21 years, Occupation : Student, R/o. Zodge, Taluka : Malegaon, District : Nashik. 3. Sangita d/o. Sharad Shimpi, Age about 21 years, Occupation : Student, R/o. Fresh-up Bakery, Neha Society, Vadala-Pathardi Road, Hiravenagar, Near Life-Line Hospital, Nasik. .. Petitioners. versus 1. The State of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 2. The Secretary, Primary School Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32. 3. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar, District : Nandurbar. (2) 4. Education Officer (Primary Education Department), Zilla Parishad, Nandurbar, District : Nandurbar. 5. Director of Education (Primary), Maharashtra State, Pune-1. .. Respondents. ....................... Mr. R.B. Narwade Patil, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos. 1, 2 and 5. Mr. P.S. Patil, Advocate, for respondent nos.3 and 4. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE : 20TH SEPTEMBER 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. By way of present petition, the petitioners are seeking direction to the respondent nos.3 and 4, to issue appointment letters to the petitioners, by maintaining their seniority, as per (3) their percentage of marks. 3. The undisputed facts giving rise to the present petition are as under : (a) All the petitioners, who were duly qualified for holding the post of Shikshan Sevak, had applied in pursuance to the notification issued by the competent authority. All the petitioners were called for written examination and after they were successful, they were also called for oral interviews. The petitioner nos.1, 2 and 3 have secured 56.68, 56.43 and 56.47 percent marks, respectively, in the said examination. (b) Noticing that the female candidates, securing lesser marks than the petitioners, were issued appointment orders and the petitioners were not issued, the petitioners made a representation to the respondent nos.3 and 4. The respondent nos.3 and 4 have addressed a communication to the Director of Education (Primary), informing therein that though the female candidates from general category, who had secured up to 56.28 percent marks were given appointment letters, the petitioners could not be given the same, as against their names it was mentioned as "Male" instead of "Female". The Director of Education, vide his communication dated 2nd September 2009, informed the respondent no.3, that the petitioners could be given (4) appointments in view of principles of natural justice. However, it was informed that since the appointing authority is the Chief Executive Officer, he should take appropriate decision at his end. Since no decision is taken, the petitioners have approached this court. 4. Mr. R.B. Narwade Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners, though held to be qualified, have been denied their legitimate right only on hypertechnical ground. He submits that even in call letters, which the petitioners have received, a prefix of Shrimati was before their names. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioners are entitled to be granted appointment on the posts on which they are selected. 5. Mr. P.S. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for respondent nos.3 and 4, on the contrary, submits that though the respondent / Zilla Parishad was willing to give appointment orders to the petitioners, the same cannot be done unless the Divisional Commissioner and the Maharashtra State Examination Council permits the Zilla Parishad to do so. 6. We find that the approach of the respondents / authorities is totally hypertechnical. From the names of the petitioners, it can be clearly seen that all the petitioners are (5) female candidates. Not only that, the respondents had also prefixed Shrimati to their names while sending call letters to the petitioners. Admittedly, the female candidates, who have secured less marks than the petitioners, have been issued appointment orders by the respondent no.3. In that view of the matter, the petition deserves to be allowed. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "b". However, parties shall bear their own costs. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp4445