A.M.Khanwilkar, J.

1. Heard Counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Mr.Nitin Deshpande, A.G.P. waives notice for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Sandesh Patil waives notice for Respondent No.3.

3. As short question is involved, Petition is taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent.

4. This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is for issuance of writ of mandamus to direct the respondents 1 and 2 to forthwith withdraw, rescind and revoke the appointment order dated 22nd October, 2010 to the extent it relates to the appointment of respondent No.3 as Law Officer Group B and that of the petitioner. It is thus prayed that the appointment of the respondent No.3 as Law Officer Group B be quashed and set-aside and to issue appropriate direction to the said respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Law Officer Group B.

5. Briefly stated, the Government by Resolution dated 21st August, 2006 created and sanctioned 471 posts of Law Officers and Law Officers Group B (Divisions and Zones) to be attached to various Commissionerates with a view to provide legal guidance and assistance to Police authorities. The designation of the said 471 posts under the said Resolution is as follows:

Designation No. of posts

1. Legal Advisor 4

2. Law Officer Group A 30

3. Law Officer Group B 55

4. Law Officer 283

5. Legal Inspector 99

6. In furtherance of the abovesaid decision, the respondent No.2 issued advertisement on 2nd April, 2007 inviting Advocates for being appointed as Law Officers. The petitioner was one of the applicant pursuant to the said advertisement. After following the selection process, the petitioner was appointed as Law Officer for 11 months in the Office of the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Ambernath. Upon completion of the said period, she was posted as Law Officer with the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Kalyan for 11 months. On completion of the said term, she was appointed for 11 more months. As per the Scheme, the candidate if selected may be appointed on contract basis initially for a period of 11 months and reappointed for two successive terms of 11 months.

7. The respondent No.2 issued advertisement on 24th June, 2009 inviting applications for the post of Law Officer and Law Officer Group B. Since the petitioner was originally working as Law Officer, and later on discharging the duties of Law Officer Group B, she applied for the post of “Law Officer Group B” pursuant to the said advertisement. The application form as was required to be filled by the candidates clearly prescribed that the candidate should fill in the blanks and strike off the inapplicable details/information. This condition in the application form has some bearing in the present case.

8. As per the selection process, the petitioner was interviewed by the Committee. On the basis of her performance, she scored 46 marks and secured second position in the candidates interviewed for the post of Law Officer Group B. As per the advertisement, two posts of Law Officers Group B were to be filled in. The petitioner had legitimate expectation of being appointed on one of the said posts having secured second position amongst the candidates who participated in the selection process for the post of Law Officer Group B. However, the petitioner was appointed as Law Officer. The pay scale for the post of Law Officer is in the range of Rs. 12,000/- to Rs.15,000/- + travelling allowance of Rs.3,000/- per month. Whereas, the pay scale for the post of Law Officer group B is in the range of 15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- + travelling allowance of Rs.5,000/-per month. According to the petitioner, although the respondent No.3, who had participated in the same selection process for the post of “Law Officer” only, came to be appointed on the post of Law Officer Group B, disregarding the claim of the petitioner. It appears that the respondent No.3 was preferred by the Department on the specious re