JUDGMENT (Dharmadhikari, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule is made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final disposal. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are from families whose lands have been acquired for it's project by respondent Nos.2 to 5. Respondent No.1 before this Court is the State Government. 4. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 have recognised the petitioners as "Project Affected Persons". As a part of it's offer, if lands were surrendered voluntarily and no cases for enhancement of compensation were filed, respondent Nos.2 to 5 offered training and then employment to the petitioners. The proceedings of meeting held in the office of Collector, Jalgaon on 3.6.2010 incorporates that such candidates be given advance vocational training and during that training and for further period till the candidate is absorbed in employment, he be paid stipend of Rs.6,000/-per month. After training for absorption in the employment, a candidate clearing qualifying examination is to be given due preference. 5. Out of total ten petitioners before this Court, it is not in dispute that six have cleared the qualifying examination. Petitioner Nos.1, 2, 6 and 10 have failed to clear that examination. Out of remaining six candidates, five have been selected and one is placed on the waiting list. Five selected candidates have not been given appointment orders because they do not possess certification of registration as project affected persons issued by the office of Collector. 6. Shri Talekar, learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that in the present facts, the petitioners need to be treated as special project affected persons and as all ten have cleared the written examination, without any further examination they must be absorbed in the employment. He contends that there is no challenge to the petitioners' status by the respondents as projected affected persons. 7. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 Shri Godsay submits that qualifying examination stipulated in the meeting dated 3.6.2010 is conducted in two parts. First part consists of written examination and later is of trade test. All ten petitioners have cleared the written test but only six of them could clear the trade test. Five selected candidates do not possess any certificate issued by the office of Collector as project affected person and hence no employment can be provided to them. First part consists of written examination and later is of trade test. All ten petitioners have cleared the written test but only six of them could clear the trade test. Five selected candidates do not possess any certificate issued by the office of Collector as project affected person and hence no employment can be provided to them. He relied upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court delivered at Aurangabad Bench in the case of Rajendra Pandurang Pagare Vs. State of Maharashtra and others [2009 (4) Mh. LJ 961] to urge that such registration and conduct of competitive selection process is must. Learned AGP for respondent No.1 supports argument of Shri Godsay, learned Advocate. 8. After hearing respective counsel and in the light of Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Rajendra Pandurang Pagare (supra), we find that even the project affected person has to compete and unless and until they compete amongst themselves, they cannot aspire for public service. Admittedly, the employment with respondent Nos.2 to 5 is a public employment. 9. The proceedings in the meeting dated 3.6.2010 contemplated training and thereafter conduct of a qualifying test for the purposes of absorption in the employment. That qualifying test has been conducted in the present matter. The petitioners cannot object to such qualifying test or it's conduct. In fact, the petitioners have appeared in the written examination and only six of them could clear the trade test. The advertisement by which the candidates were invited for written test itself stipulated that there shall be a trade test also. Said advertisement is dated 1.11.2012. 10. It is therefore, obvious that conduct of written test and trade test for selection of suitable candidates out of project affected persons cannot be said to be either arbitrary or perverse. The contention that the condition which requires the petitioners to appear for such examination should be quashed and set aside is, therefore, erroneous. 11. However, we find that respondent Nos.2 to 5 have recognised the petitioners as project affected persons. There is no dispute about the status of the petitioners, so far as respondent Nos.2 to 5 are concerned. The insistence that the petitioners ought to have registered with the Collector is, therefore, unwarranted. The insistence could have been accepted and acted upon had the persons other than petitioners attempted to obtain employment with respondent Nos.2 to 5. There is no dispute about the status of the petitioners, so far as respondent Nos.2 to 5 are concerned. The insistence that the petitioners ought to have registered with the Collector is, therefore, unwarranted. The insistence could have been accepted and acted upon had the persons other than petitioners attempted to obtain employment with respondent Nos.2 to 5. Here, they have been trained by giving them special treatment by respondent Nos.2 to 5 because of that statement. It is also in terms of memo of understanding dated 3.6.2010 between parties recorded before the Collector only. We, therefore, find that the insistence of respondents upon production of certificate showing them as project affected persons by respondent Nos.2 to 5 is unwarranted. 12. We, therefore, partly allow the Writ Petition and direct respondent Nos.2 to 5 to issue appointment orders to five selected petitioners and if occasion arises, to issue an appointment order to a person on waiting list, without insisting upon the production of certificate as project affected person. 13. Rule is made partly absolute to this extent. No order as to costs.