{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.10416 OF 2010 1 The Zilla Parishad, Hingoli, through its Chief Executive Officer as President of Selection Committee of Shikshan Sevak. 2 The Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Hingoli and Secretary of Selection Committee of Shikshan Sevak. Petitioners Versus Ku.Saroja d/o Marotirao Solunke, age: 27 years, Occ: Nil, R/o Khandali, Tq.Ahmedpur, District Latur. Respondent Mr.V.S.Panpatte, advocate for petitioners Mr.A.R.Kale, advocate holding for Mr.R.B.Deshmukh, advocate for respondent. CORAM : B.R.GAVAI AND R.M.BORDE, JJ. DATE : 15 th November, 2010 PER COURT: 1 By way of present petition, petitioners challenge the judgment and order passed by the learned President, Grievance Committee for Entertaining the Complaints of Shikshan Sevaks, {2} thereby allowing the appeal filed by Respondent sole. 2 In pursuant to the advertisement issued by the present petitioners for the post of Shikshan Sevak, the Respondent had applied from the category of project affected persons. According to the Respondent, three posts were reserved for the said category and she was eligible for being appointed in accordance with her merit. Since the Respondent was not appointed, she preferred an appeal bearing No.41 of 2006 before the Grievance Committee. The same was allowed. Hence the present petition. 3 Shri Panpatte, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the Grievance Committee had no jurisdiction to entertain the grievance regarding appointment / non appointment of Shikshan Sevaks. On merits, he submits that since the Respondent candidate is not from Hingoli district and is from Latur district, and such in accordance with Government Resolution, she was not entitled to be appointed in a seat reserved for project affected persons. He further submits that the reservation for project affected persons is for the candidates from respective districts and guidance was sought from the State Government in that respect. 4 It was a specific case of the Respondent before the Grievance Committee that three posts from the category of project affected persons were reserved. It is also her specific case that {3} only two candidates were appointed and third post was kept vacant. The only reply filed on behalf of present petitioners before the Grievance Committee was that since the Respondent is not from the home district, she was not entitled to be appointed. 5 We find that the stand taken by the Zilla Parishad is totally illegal. A Full Bench of this Court, in the case of Rajendra Pandurang Pagare Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2009 (4) Bom.C.R. 928, has, in an unequivocal term, held that districtwise reservation is not permissible in law. It has further been held that the competent authorities are required to reserve the posts for project affected persons and against said posts, all eligible candidates from the entire State are entitled to compete. It has further been held that the best candidates competing in the said selection process are entitled to be appointed. In that view of the matter, the stand taken by the Zilla Parishad is totally unsustainable. When a Full Bench of this Court has taken a particular view, we do not understand the propriety of the Zilla Parishad in obtaining clarification from the State Government. In no case, the State Government can give directions, which are in conflict with the decision by a larger Bench of this Court. In that view of the matter, we find that the stand taken by the Zilla Parishad is totally unsustainable in law. 6 Insofar as first contention of the Zilla Parishad regarding jurisdiction of the Grievance Committee is concerned, {4} undoubtedly, the petitioners have acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the Grievance Committee. They have not only appeared before the Grievance Committee, but have also filed a reply and contested the matter on merits. After acquiescing to the jurisdiction and having lost therein, now the petitioners cannot be permitted to say that the Grievance Committee has no jurisdiction. Apart from that, on merits, we find that the Respondent is entitled to be appointed in view of the view taken by the larger Bench of this Court. 7 Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed with exemplary costs, which are quantified at Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand). It is needless to say that if the order passed by the Grievance Committee has so far not been complied with, same shall be given effect to within a period of four weeks from today. 8 Shri Kale, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, gracefully states that the Respondent is only interested in the job and not interested in the costs. We, therefore, direct that the costs, which have been directed to be paid, shall be paid to the High Court Bar Association Library, Aurangabad. The costs be deposited within a period of three weeks from today and receipt thereof shall be placed on record. R.M.BORDE B.R.GAVAI JUDGE JUDGE adb/wp1041610