1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6733 OF 2010 Mayura Panditrao Phad .. PETITIONER VERSUS 1] The State of Maharashtra and others .. RESPONDENTS .... Shri S.S.Jadhavar, Advocate for the petitioner. Smt.A.V.Gondhalekar,Adv.for Respondent no.1. Shri A.R.Nikam,Adv.for R.2. .... CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & A.A.SAYED,JJ. DATE :20 th OCTOBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, Petition is heard finally. 2 2] A limited grievance of the petitioner is that though the petitioner after successfully completing written examination conducted by the respondent no.2 and though she was called for interview, she was not given an appointment order on the ground that the certificate of project affected persons was not submitted by her. 3] The merit list which is annexed at page 22, would show that in so far as candidates in open category are concerned, the cut off marks is 146, whereas in so far as the candidates in NT-D category is concerned, the cut off is 143. The cut off in open project affected persons category is 136, and project affected persons NT-D category is 136. Perusal of marks obtained by the petitioner would reveal that the petitioner has secured 154 marks. It is also to be noted that the petitioner has claimed from project affected persons’ as well as ‘NT-D’ category. In accordance with the guidelines issued by the respondent no.2, which are given at the bottom of the 3 application form, if a candidate is entitled to be considered from more than one reserved category, then, he is required to be considered from all the reserved categories to which he belongs. As such, it can clearly be seen that the petitioner was entitled to be considered from the project affected persons category so also the NT-D category. We find that the action of the respondent no.3 in denying the appointment to the petitioner on the sole ground that she did not possess project affected persons certificate, was not in accordance with law. In the event, the petitioner had failed to obtain project affected persons certificate, the claim of the petitioner could have been considered from the NT-D category inasmuch as the cut off marks for NT-D category is 143 whereas petitioner has secured 154 marks. It is however, to be seen, that the petitioner has secured 154 marks, whereas the cut off for open category is 146. As such, the petitioner was also entitled to be appointed against the open category seat. 4 4] We therefore, allow the petition by directing respondent no.3 to appoint the petitioner as a Shikshan Sevak against a next available vacancy from open category. 5] Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. (A.A.SAYED) (B.R.GAVAI) JUDGE JUDGE umg/wp6733-10