ORDER: (Per Dabholkar, J.)

1. By this review petition, original writ petitioner in Writ Petition No.4471/2006 seeks review of order of this Court dated 12.7.2006.

2. Writ Petition No.4471/2006 was filed by present review petitioner praying for directions to the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Establishment Superintendent against one of the posts reserved for women in general category, which were lying vacant (even after conclusion of selection process) by issuance of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ. The writ petition came before this Court for admission on 12.7.2006 and finding no merits in the writ petition, the same was dismissed in limine by the impugned order.

3. Petitioner is a Graduate in Arts faculty and Post Graduate in Business Administration. She claims to possess experience of having worked as Assistant Manager (HR) in Eklavya Prakashan Private Limited, Aurangabad, for 3 years. She had applied for the post of Establishment Superintendent and Assistant Personnel Officer in response to an advertisement No.1/2005 published by the respondents inviting applications for several posts including 20 posts of Establishment Superintendent. Out of 20 posts of Establishment Superintendent, 11 were reserved for various categories (vertical), whereas 9 posts were available for general category. About 1200 candidates appeared for written examination conducted for the purpose of shortlisting (screening test) on 5.3.2006. Petitioner learnt that about 12 candidates had qualified in the written examination and petitioner was the only female candidate, who had, thus, qualified. She was invited for viva voce on 5.5.2006 and accordingly she appeared for the interview. Merit list of the candidates, who had appeared for written as well as viva was published on Internet on 23.5.2006 and petitioner is shown to have secured 25 marks out of 100. She had claimed to be considered for a post reserved for women, not belonging to creamy layer. Petitioner relies upon policy decision of the Government as promulgated by the Government resolution dated 16.3.1999 issued by the Department of General Administration. Petitioner expressed grievance because one candidate belonging to OBC category having secured 22.6 marks is selected and she is not selected. She has expressed grievance that bench mark (minimum qualifying marks) were fixed by the selection committee in an arbitrary manner and, thus, purpose of 30% reservation for women was frustrated.

4. The points to be argued as carved out and specifically quoted in the synopsis of the writ petition were as follows: "(I) Since the Recruitment Agency has fixed different minimum qualifying marks for different categories, it was necessary to fix lesser qualifying marks for women, women by itself, being the reserved category. (II) The very purpose of providing 30% reservation in favour of women is being frustrated since they are treated at par with male candidates in the matter of providing minimum qualifying marks." . In fact, the points for consideration, bifurcated into two, represent one argument, that women is a "reserved category" and, therefore, the bench mark, as it was lowered in the case of reserved categories (vertical), also should have been lowered in case of reserved categories (horizontal) and more particularly for women and, thus, petitioner ought to have been accommodated in one of the seats reserved for women of open category. (If compartmentalized amongst 9 seats of open category, there would have been 3 seats for women and if not compartmentalized, there could have been 6 seats reserved for women out of total 20 seats of Establishment Superintendent advertised). . Advocate Shri Talekar for the applicant / review petitioner had raised some queries and Advocate Shri Bajaj for respondents was asked by us to reply those queries. Consequently, on record, apart from reply affidavit filed on 29.9.2006 by one Satish s/o Narsayya Gadappa, rejoinder filed by petitioner on 10.11.2

Click Here to Read the rest of this document