(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2242 OF 2009 Mantri s/o Ramdhan Ade, Age 28 yrs, Occ.nil, r/o.c/o R.R.Rathod, Devman Niwas, Kailash Nagar, Tq. & Dist. Nanded. ...PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Secretary of Higher Education Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai. 2. The Registrar, Swami Ramanand Tirth Marathwada University, Vishnupuri, tq. & Dist. Nanded. 3. The President/Secretary, Kishan Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Udgir, Tq. Udgir & Dist. Latur. 4. The Principal, Mahatma Phule Mahavidyalaya, Ahmedpur, Dist. Latur. 5. AnilkumarRambhau Rathod, Age: major, occu. service, r/o Shaeed Bhagatsing Mahavidyalaya, Killari, Tq. Ausa, Dist. Latur. 6. Pandurang Dnyanoba Chilgar, Age 35 yrs, occu.nil, r/o Ahamadpur, Tq. Ahmadpur, District Latur. ...RESPONDENTS (2) Smt.Maya R.Jamdhade, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt. A.V.Gondhalekar, AGP, for respondent State. Shri P.S.Patil, Adv., for respondent no.2. Shri. V.D.Gunale, Adv., for respondent nos. 3 and 4. Shri S.S.Deo, Adv., for respondent no. 6/intervenor. Respondent no.5. served. ... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & K.U. CHANDIWAL, JJ. DATE :17th NOVEMBER, 2009. *** PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for respective parties. 2. Petitioner applied for the post of Lecturer in Hindi subject against an advertisement issued by respondent College. The note put up under the advertisement was that, against the five posts advertised, one post would be filled in from the category of physically handicapped persons. This advertisement was issued on 21.5.2008 and was published in Lokmat newspaper. The University Selection Committee screened the candidates and submitted its recommendation ( Exh.D). We find that in the Hindi subject a list of three candidates was prepared by the Selection Committee. At Sr.No.1, name of respondent no.6 appears. The petitioner's name is at Sr.No.3. While recommending these (3) names, the Selection Committee endorsed that the case of the physically disabled candidate may be considered but, at the same time, the Committee opined that respondent no.6, on merits, stands at Sr.No.1. 3. We have perused the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents; so also rejoinder and we have heard submissions made by the respective learned counsel, including Counsel for the University. 4. The learned Counsel Mr. Gunale submits that respondent no.6 stood first in the merit list prepared by the Selection Committee and, therefore, they have appointed respondent no.6 and, accordingly, he has taken charge. 5. From the record placed before us, we do not find that the post in Hindi subject was reserved for a physically disabled candidate. The note mentioned in the advertisement refers that out of six posts advertised, one would be filled in by a candidate having physical disability. In the light of these peculiar facts and circumstances, the petitioner could not be appointed. 6. At the same time, we direct that if the (4) respondent College has backlog of appointment of a physically handicapped/disabled candidate, as per the Policy of the respondent State, then the same shall be filled in, in the next available vacancy. The Petition stands dismissed. [K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.] [NARESH H.PATIL, J.] ... agp/wp2242-09