WP No. 10757/10 1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10757 OF 2010 Gajanan s/o. Satyabhan Nagre, Age 31 yrs., Occu. Service, working as Junior Research Fellow R/o. C/o. G.A. Konale, CL-9/69/4, 12th Scheme, Near Hanuman Mandir, Shivajinagar, Aurangabad. ....Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra 2. Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, through its Member Secretary, Kalpataru Point, 3rd and 4th Floor, Sion Matunga Scheme, Road No. 8, Opposite Cine Planet Cinema, Cinema Industry, Sion Circle, Sion (E), Bombay 400 022. 3. Shri. Vivekanand Gyanba Kare, Age Major, Occu. Service, Regional Laboratory, Maharashtra Pollution Control Board, Plot No. A-4/1, Chikhalthana MIDC, Behind Lokpatra Office, near Dhoot Hospital, Aurangabad. ....Respondents. Mr. V.D. Sapkal, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.K. Kadam, A.G.P. for respondent No. 1. Mr. Ajay Deshpande, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Mr. A.B. Salve, Advocate for respondent No. 3. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & T. V. NALAWADE, JJ. DATED : 29th September, 2011. WP No. 10757/10 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent of parties. 2. The petitioner contends that he is qualified as M.Sc. and was appointed as Field Assistant on 16.8.2005. On 21.2.2006 the petitioner was appointed as Junior Lab Assistant on temporary basis. On 1.8.2006 he was appointed as Junior Research Fellow. On 20.7.2005 circular was issued by which certain posts were to be filled in from amongst the persons working with respondent No. 2 on contract basis. The petitioner filed application on 13.9.2005 from N.T.-D category because he belongs to Wanjari caste. He was issued call letter for interview which was held on 19.9.2005. The petitioner was sole candidate from N.T.-D category. 3. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 by mistake appointed respondent No. 3 on the post reserved for N.T.- D category, though respondent No. 3 belongs to N.T.-C category. Representations were made by the petitioner in this regard. As petitioner did not get favourable reply, the present petition came to be filed. WP No. 10757/10 3 4. In response to notice issued, respondent Nos. 2 and 3 filed affidavit in reply. On behalf of respondent No. 2, the deponent contends that :- "5. With reference to para 6 of the petition, I say & submit that the Respondent No. 3 has been appointed from NT (C) Category for the post of Jr. Scientific Assistant. I fairly admit that due to typographical mistake about the category, the Respondent No. 3 has been shown in NT (D) Category, instead of NT (C) Category. Therefore, it is true to say that the Respondent-Board has appointed Respondent No. 3 in NT (C) Category. However, out of backlog of 5 vacant posts, 3 posts were filled up in Reserved Category and 2 posts in Open Category. 6. ............. 7. ............. 8. ............. 9. With reference to para 12 of the petition, I say and submit that the Respondent Board has not filled up the vacant post of NT (D) Category, therefore, the Respondent Board has not violated Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India." 5. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 - WP No. 10757/10 4 Board submits that the post reserved for N.T.-D category is still vacant and it was by mistake, respondent No. 3, who belongs to N.T.-C category, was appointed as a candidate belonging to N.T.-D category and accordingly he was appointed. This fact is not disputed by the counsel appearing for respondent No. 3. The counsel, therefore, submits that the inadvertent mistake would be corrected by issuing appropriate orders. It is submitted that the respondent No. 3 could be appointed on a post reserved for N.T.-C category and the petitioner in N.T.-D category as the petitioner was admittedly selected. 6. We, therefore, direct the respondent No. 2 - Board to appoint petitioner in the subject post reserved for N.T.-D category and correct the record by showing appointment of respondent No. 3 against the post reserved for N.T.-C category. This order shall be complied within six weeks from today. 7. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. [ T. V. NALAWADE, J.] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J.] ssc/