1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.328 OF 2010 1) Shripad s/o Narayan Kulkarni, Age-34 years, Occu:Unemployed, R/o. At Post-Barul, Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded, 2) Ramesh s/o Khanderao Gomashe, Age-37 years, Occ:Unemployed, R/o. At Post-Nimgaon, Tq-Hadgaon, Dist-Nanded, 3) Govind s/o Madhavrao Hangargekar, Age-35 years, Occu:Unemployed, R/o. At Post-Karadkhed, Tq-Degloor, Dist-Nanded, 4) Suresh s/o Mohan Jadhav, Age-34 years, Occu:Unemployed, R/o. At Post-Panchincholi, Tq-Nilanga, Dist-Latur, 5) Vidyasagar s/o Kishanrao Nagapalle, Age-30 years, Occu:Unemployed, R/o. At Post-Nagalgaon, Tq-Udgir, Dist-Latur, 6) Rajkumar s/o Mallikarjun Mhada, Age-31 years, Occu:Unemployed, R/o. At Post-Togri, Tq-Udgir, Dist-Latur, 7) Dapke Bibishan Tukaram, Age-33 years, Occu:Unemployed, R/o. At Post-Handarguli, Tq-Udgir, Dist-Latur, 2 8) Davare Suryakant Vishwanath, Age-33 years, Occu:Unemployed, R/o. At Post-Daul, Tq-Udgir, Dist-Latur, 9) Bamane Santosh Gunderao. Age-31 years, Occu:Unemployed, R/o. At Post-Bamani, Tq-Udgir, Dist-Latur. ...PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Ministry of Energy, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032, 2) Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., "Prakashgad", Plot No.C-19, "E" Block, 7th Floor, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.N.N. Chitlange Advocate for Petitioners. Mr.V.D. Godbharale, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.S.S. Bajaj Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... WITH WRIT PETITION NO.401 OF 2010 1) Radhavendra s/o Devidasrao Deshpande, Age-39 years, Occu:Unemployed, R/o. 26/746- Near Patwari House, Samarth Nagar, Osmanabad. 3 2) Manmath s/o Digambar Mangnale, Age-34 years, Occ:Unemployed, R/o. At Post-Phulwal, Tq-Kandhar, Dist-Nanded. ...PETITIONERS. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Ministry of Energy, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032, 2) Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co. Ltd., Through its Human Resources Department), "Prakashgad", Plot No.C-19, "E" Block, 7th Floor, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai 400 051. 3) Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd., I.C.C. Trade Tower, A-Wing, 5th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Shivajinagar, Pune. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.N.N. Chitlange Advocate for Petitioners. Mr.V.D. Godbharale A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.A.S. Bajaj Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 22ND JANUARY, 2010 4 COURT'S ORDER (PER A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.) : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The principal grievance made in these Petitions is that the Respondent No.2 while issuing advertisement, has not specifically provided for separate reservation for the Project Affected Persons and for Earth Quake Affected Persons, in the advertisement. 3. The argument clearly over-looks the condition specified in the advertisement in question. Condition No.4 in the advertisement refers to 5% reservation for Project Affected Persons. The affidavit filed before this Court re-states that position. Besides, the Respondent No.2 has submitted through the counsel that the applicants under the the category of Project Affected Persons, for which 5% posts are ear-marked and set apart, will have to compete inter-se. It is also 5 submitted that similar procedure would be adopted during the scrutiny of the applications received from the prospective candidates in the category of Earth Quake Affected Persons, for whom 2% posts have been ear-marked and set apart. 4. It is true that 2% reservation provided for the Earth Quake Affected Persons has not been specifically mentioned in the impugned advertisement. However, realizing that it is a mistake, later on a corrigendum has been issued, which stipulates that position. Copy of corrigendum was produced before us. It is not the case of the Petitioners that such corrigendum has not been issued. In other words, the Respondent No.2 has adopted mechanism consistent with the legal requirement of considering the applications of the candidates belonging to Project Affected Persons and Earth Quake Affected Persons, as the case may be. 5. Understood thus, there is no substance in 6 these Petitions. The same are therefore, dismissed. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.] asb/JAN10/wp328.10