1 wp6219-09.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6219/2009 Govind Bhimrao Kulkarni. .. Petitioner Versus Zill Parishad, Latur and others ... Respondents .... Mr.M.B.Kolse,Adv.for petitioner. Mr.V.B.Ghatge,AGP for respondent-State. ... CORAM : NARESH H.PATIL AND T.V.NALAWADE, JJ. DATE : 11H NOVEMBER ,2011 ORAL ORDER : 1] Heard. 2] The petition is filed to challenge the recruitment process which was undertaken by respondent no.1 for recruitment to the various posts including 54 posts of Parichar. Respondents 2 and 3 are selected from the category of handicapped candidates and their selection is challenged. 2 wp6219-09.odt 3] The petitioner had applied for the post of Parichar from open category and also from the category of handicapped persons. Two posts for handicapped persons [for all categories] were reserved. It is the case of the petitioner that the recruitment process was not fair and complete information was not supplied to him. He has contended that respondents 2 and 3 were not qualified and they were not eligible for the appointment to the post of Parichar. 4] Respondent no.1 has filed affidavit in reply and it is contended that respondents 2 and 3 have secured more marks in the written tests and oral interview than the petitioner and further they belong to reserved categories like N.T.C. and S.C. The particulars with regard to the marks secured by handicapped candidates are supplied by respondent no.1. 5] It appears that respondent no.2 secured 59.43% marks and respondent no.3 secured 57.43% marks. The petitioner secured 38.43% marks. It was submitted during arguments for the petitioner that the posts were reserved for open category and so the respondents 2 and 3 who belong to reserved categories like N.T.C. and S.C. could not have been appointed. Copy of the advertisement is on record and it shows that two posts were reserved for handicapped persons and for these posts, the persons from all the categories [open and reserved categories] could have been considered. The reservation 3 wp6219-09.odt is shown as vertical reservation. In view of these circumstances, it is not open for the petitioner to say that the respondents 2 and 3 could not have been appointed as against posts advertised. In any case, respondents 2 and 3 secured more marks than the petitioner who belongs to open category and so there is no force in the grievance of the petitioner. Petition stands rejected. (T.V.NALAWADE, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL,J.) umg/wp6219-09