1 162-WP-5039-24.odt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5039 OF 2024 BALKRUSHNA KARBHARI KHARAT VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS ... Mr. Rajabhau Chaudhari, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. B. B. Bhise, AGP for Respondents/State Mr. Suhas R. Shirsat, Advocate for Respondent Nos.6 And 7 Mr. Amarsinha S. Kakade, Advocate for Applicant in CA/5042/2025 ... WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5042 OF 2025 IN WP/5039/2024 RAJENDRA BHANUDAS CHORMALE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS … CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 28th SEPTEMBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. This petition challenges the communication dated 15/03/2024 issued by respondent No.7, thereby refusing to give appointment to the petitioner as a ‘Live Stock Supervisor’ from Hard of Hearing (HH) handicapped category. 2. Petitioner applied for the post of ‘Live Stock Supervisor’ from Hard of Hearing handicapped category, pursuant to the selection process initiated vide Advertisement No.01/2023. Qualifying marks were 90 and he scored 94 marks out of 200. SVH 2026:BHC-AUG:45881-DB 2 162-WP-5039-24.odt However, call letter for verification of documents was not issued to the petitioner. He, therefore, made several representations to the respondents. However, those were not considered in the proper perspective and the request of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he has not filled application form properly. It was also stated that the petitioner has selected option ‘B’ for Hard of Hearing handicapped category, instead of option ‘A’. The rejection is communicated to the petitioner by the impugned communication. 3. Heard learned advocate for petitioner, learned AGP for the State, learned advocate for respondent Nos.6 and 7 and learned advocate for the intervener. 4. Admittedly, petitioner belongs to Hard of Hearing handicapped category. Learned advocate for respondent Nos.6 and 7 opposed the petition by placing reliance on the Government Resolution dated 31/07/2025. The said argument is unacceptable in view of the fact that the Advertisement was issued in the year 2023. Hence, the said Government Resolution cannot be made retrospectively applicable to the case of petitioner. Another ground pressed into service by learned advocate for respondent Nos.6 and 7 is that, in the disability certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon it is mentioned that the petitioner is suffering from 80% temporary disability. 5. To assess the correct disability percentage of the SVH 3 162-WP-5039-24.odt petitioner, we directed the Medical Board comprising of Head of Department of ENT to examine the petitioner and issue disability certificate. The Medical Board has accordingly examined the petitioner and submitted disability certificate certifying that the petitioner is suffering from 80% permanent disability. It is, thus, clear that the petitioner fulfills eligibility criteria for appointment to the post of ‘Live Stock Supervisor’ from PwD-HH category. 6. It is transpired during the course of hearing that appointment order is not issued to the petitioner though he was selected, due to the complaint made by the intervener who is a wait-listed candidate. 7. In the light of the above, the impugned communication dated 15/03/2024 issued by respondent No.7 cannot be sustained and the same is hereby quashed and set aside. The writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to issue appointment order to the petitioner. 8. Accordingly the pending civil application also stands disposed of. (ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) SVH