{1} 66-wp-8802-2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 66 WRIT PETITION NO. 8802 OF 2022 Satish Namdev Avhad VERSUS The State Of Maharashtra And Others ... Mr. A.G. Ambetkar, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. B.B. Bhise, AGP for State Mr. Manish Navandar, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 Mr. P.M. Nagargoje, Advocate for Respondent No. 3 ....... CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ. DATE : 05th OCTOBER, 2026 PER COURT : 1. By this petition, petitioner challenges selection process conducted by Respondent No. 2 for the post of Agriculture Assistant (Dip.) for NT-D category, with Respondent No. 2-University. 2. Heard learned Advocate for the Petitioner, learned Advocate for Respondent No. 2 and learned Advocate for Respondent No. 3. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner has challenged the selection of Respondent No. 3 mainly on the ground that he had not applied from NT-D category, on the contrary he had applied from OBC category and therefore his 2026:BHC-AUG:46667-DB {2} 66-wp-8802-2022 selection against the post reserved for NT-D category is unsustainable. 4. The University has filed affidavit stating that Respondent No. 3 had applied from NT-D category. Along with the application he has placed on record all the relevant documents such as school leaving, TC which states his caste as Vanjari. Another document i.e. non creamy layer in which it is stated that Respondent No. 3 belongs to Vanjari (30) Tribe which is recognised as Nomadic Tribes (D) under the Government Resolution dated 23.03.1994. In the affidavit it is further mentioned that Respondent No. 3 secured 178 marks which are highest amongst the NT-D category. The petitioner having secured 166 marks is kept in the waiting list. 5. Respondent No. 3 has opposed the petition by filing affidavit in reply. He has placed on record copy of application form wherein in the category column he has mentioned OBC (NTD) category and caste as Vanjari. 6. We find merit in the submission of learned advocate for the University that petitioner has placed reliance on the final list of eligible candidates prepared by the agency to whom scrutiny of applications was given and in the said list before name of Respondent No. 3 “OBC” is mentioned and that is not the final list. {3} 66-wp-8802-2022 7. In the light of above, we do not find merit in the challenge raised by the petitioner. Writ Petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. (ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.) Bhagyawant Punde