1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5166/1998 1] Govind Bajrang Patil, Adult,Occupation-Police Patil of village Shirapur(s) ,Taluka-Mohol, Dist.Solapur. 2] Dattatraya T.Patil, Adult, Occ-Village Police Patil of Warkute, Post Aundhi,Taluka Mohol,Dist.Solapur. 3] Shivaji Bapurao Patil, Adult,Occupation-Police Patil of village Waphale,Tal.Mohol,Dist.Solapur. Petitioners versus 1] The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary,revenue & Forest Department , Mantralaya , Bombay-400 032 2] The Sub Divisional Officer, Madha Sub-Division,Kurduwadi, Dist.Solapur. 3] The State of Maharashtra, through the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya,Bombay 400 032 Respondents 2 Mr.S.G.Kudle , for Petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane ,AGP for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 CORAM : D. D. SINHA AND MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. RESERVED ON : JUNE 10, 2010. PRONOUNCED ON : JULY 2, 2010 J U D G M E N T (Per Mrs.Mridula Bhatkar,J.) . This petition is directed against order dated 17th July, 1998 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal . 2. The petitioners have challenged notification dated 27th November 1997 issued by the State of Maharashtra , respondent no.1 , in respect of the reservations of the posts of Police Patil in the villages . The three petitioners are the residents of village Shirapur(s) , Warkute and Waphale , Tal.Mohol,District- Solapur 3 respectively. The fathers of the petitioners were working as village Police Patils of the respective villages and thereafter the petitioners under the provisions of Sections 3 & 5 of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Act, 1967 were appointed by the Taluka Executive Magistrate. At the time of filing of the petition they were working as police Patils. The posts of Police Patils in these three villages were from open category. However, by notification dated 27th November, 1997 the posts in these three villages were declared as reserved posts. The posts were held by the candidates belonged to open category and the petitioners too belong to the open category . It is contended by the petitioners that the Government of Maharashtra had issued 200 point model roster in respect of appointments. However, the government policy to allot the post of the Police Patil in the villages of the petitioners for the reserved category was not in consonance with the roster point and so the said notification is to be quashed and set 4 aside. The petitioners’ posts were not reserved and vacancies have occurred due to the retirement and expiry of the tenure of respective village police Patil from the open category and when the roster point is already consumed the reservation cannot be transferred to some other point. Therefore, the petitioners have filed three separate applications challenging the said circular before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and those applications were rejected by a common order which is the subject matter before this Court. 3. Learned counsel Mr.Kudale , appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the roster is permitted to operate till the total posts in the cadre are filled in and thereafter the vacancies falling in the cadre are to be filled in by the same category of persons. The balance between the reserved category and general/open category shall always be maintained . Mr .Kudale in support of his 5 submissions relied on the judgment of the Apex Court (R.K.Sabharwal and others Vs.State of Punjab and others ) reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court 1371. 4. The respondents though appeared through A.G.P. chose not to file affidavit in reply . However, learned A.G.P. opposed the petition on the basis of the record of the petitioners and has submitted that nothing can be faulted out in the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal so the petition be dismissed. 5. We have perused the record and the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 17th July,1998 . The posts of three villages were of open category prior to 1997 . So the petitioners being from the open category were appointed as Police Patils. In the year 1997 the Government changed its policy of reservation regarding Dhangar caste and the said caste was included 6 in Nomadic Tribes leading thereby backlog in the category of O.B.C./S.C.. The number of Police Patils who were already appointed from Dhangar Caste had consumed the roster before 1997 . However, deletion of Dhangar caste from OBC category resulted in backlog of the posts of Police Patil .In the case of R.K.Sabharwal (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered that the balance between the reserved castegory and general category is to be maintained properly and it is held that - In other words in a cadre of 100 posts when the posts earmarked in the roster for the Scheduled Castes and the Backward Classes are filled the percentage of reservation provided for the reserved categories is achieved. There would be not justification to operate the roster thereafter. The “running account’’ is to operate only till the quota provided under the impugned instructions is reached and not thereafter. Once the prescribed percentage of posts is filled the numerical test of adequacy is satisfied and thereafter the roster does not survive. 6. However, the ratio in the said case is not helpful to the petitioner . In the present case prior to issuance of the 7 circular in 1997 government has taken a policy decision to include Dhangar caste in Nomadic Tribes ,therefore,by way of corollary the vacancy in reserved category of OBC and SC was created and these reserved posts of Police Patil of these three villages were taken out from the open category. It is not the case of the petitioners that all the vacancies reserved for OBC were filled in and the roster was consumed. The posts of police Patil in the reserved category i.e. OBC in the village of the petitioners were vacant. 7. The petitioners could not establish any vested or enforcible right to the post of police Patil .The petitioners could not bring on record any illegality or malafides in the said circular . Thus, we are of the view that there is no merit in this petition . Order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal requires no interference. 8 The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR,J.)