1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.57 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3795 OF 2009 Ms.Rajashree Mallikarjun Parsapgol .. Appellant Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mrs.P.U.Badadare h/f. Mr.P.R.Arjunwadkar for petitioner Mr.S.D.Jayrikar AGP for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. CORAM : ANIL R. DAVE, C.J. & S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 29th March 2010. P.C.: 1] Being aggrieved by an order dated 26th November 2009 passed in the Writ Petition No.3795 of 2009 this appeal has been filed by the original petitioner. 2] The petitioner – appellant had applied for being appointed as Police Patil and with the said application all the relevant documents and material was supplied. She had stated that her date of birth was 19th May 1984. She had relied upon school leaving certificate showing the date of birth as 2 19th May 1984. Thereafter, as per the certificate annexed to the application, the petitioner was treated as under age and, therefore, another certificate disclosing her birth date as 28th March 1983 was submitted by the petitioner. 3] The case of the petitioner was not considered for reason that the petitioner was age barred and, therefore, the Executive Magistrate, Gadhinglaj had passed an order dated 16th February 2009 to the effect that the petitioner could not have been appointed to the post of Police Patil. Thereafter, the aforesaid second certificate showing the date of birth of petitioner was placed on record. However, the review application which was filed along with the birth certificate was not accepted and, therefore, the petition came to be filed which also has been dismissed by the impugned order. 4] In our opinion, this appeal is not maintainable as the petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. However in our opinion, even looking to the facts of the case, this is not a fit case where this Court should interfere because even prior to her appointment, the petitioner had approached the authorities with two different certificates 3 showing different birth dates. In our opinion her case was rightly not considered and the learned Single Judge was also justified in rejecting the petition. 5] There is no substance in the appeal and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( CHIEF JUSTICE ) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J)