1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 7323 OF 2006 *** 1. We have heard learned counsel Mr. Deshmukh for the Petitioner and learned A.G.P. Mr. S.K.Kadam for Respondents. 2. Issue raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is within the narrow compass. Counsel appearing for the petitioner points out Annexure-B. By this communication dated 16th December, 2003 petitioner was invited for interview for the post of Peon from the category of in-service candidate i.e. Kotwal which was scheduled on 29th December, 2003 at 08.30 a.m., along with documents mentioned in that communications. Candidature of the Petitioner was to be considered for the vacant post of Peon. Page 42 is another communication Annexure-C pointed out to us by learned counsel Mr. Deshmukh. This communication is dated 22nd December, 2003. By this communication, the petitioner was informed that interviews for the post of Peon 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. from Kotwal cadre, which were scheduled on 29th December, 2003 have been postponed on account of some unavoidable circumstance. Counsel for the Petitioner points out para 8 of the judgment of the learned Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) in Original Application NO.944 of 2005. There, the learned MAT has made some observations. It appears from these observations that guidelines were sought from the State Government. These guidelines were received on 16th February, 2005. It was informed by the State Government that the Kotwals who have crossed upper age limit of 45 years of age on the date of interview should not be called for interview. It is because of this, according to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, interviews scheduled on 29th December, 2003 have been postponed. According to his argument, on the date of interview i.e. 29th December, 2003, 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. petitioner was eligible for the post of Peon from the cadre of Kotwal. Petitioner is not at fault for postponement of the interview. He, therefore, seeks writ against the State Government to hold interview of the present petitioner for the post of Peon. 3. On behalf of Respondents, and in view of the earlier order, short affidavit in reply is filed. Copy has been served to learned counsel Mr. Deshmukh. This affidavit in reply is not tagged with the writ petition, however, office copy is made available to us by learned A.G.P. Mr. Kadam. We have seen para 4 of the reply affidavit, with the assistance of learned A.G.P. Mr. Kadam. In this para 4, clarification is given for postponement of the interviews, scheduled on 29th December, 2003. Clarification was sought from the Government. Authority concerned was required to remind the Government. Ultimately on 16th February, 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. 2004 clarification was received. It is already placed on record, page 60 of the petition. This is also considered by the learned MAT in para 8 of its judgment. Thereafter, in the next para, which is again numbered as para 4, statement is made that interviews were held in the month of April, 2005. That date is significant from the view point that it was the date of interview of the present petitioner after crossing the age limit of 45 years. Therefore, the affiant has requested for dismissal of the writ petition and supported the order passed by the learned MAT. 4. We have given due consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. Ground reality is that, as of today, indisputably the petitioner is more than 51 years old. In our opinion, now issuing a writ as sought by the petitioner, who was original applicant, may prove futile 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. exercise. In this view of the matter, writ petition stands disposed of. Rule discharged. No costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. [SHRIHARI P.DAVARE,J.] [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:13/10/2010. ans/7323