1 WP-8238-2011 srk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8238 OF 2011 Vishwas Dattatraya Patil ...Petitioner Versus The Director General of Police and ors. ...Respondents Mr.Mahindra Deshmukh for petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. November 11, 2011. P.C. 1. Heard. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22/6/2011 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal thereby dismissing Original Application No.790 of 2010 filed by the petitioner. 2. The petitioner had joined the Indian Army on 15/9/1980 as a Craftsman. He retired on 31/7/2005 after reaching the age of 43 years 2 WP-8238-2011 (date of birth – 1/6/1962). The petitioner claims that on 28/11/2005 he submitted an application for the post of Police Inspector (Armourer). On 28/7/2006 he was informed that there was no post of Police Inspector vacant and, therefore, his application could not be considered. It appears that subsequently the petitioner submitted an application in response to which the office of the Special Inspector General of Police, State Reserved Police Force at Pune subjected the petitioner’s certificates for verification. The verification reports were received and as per the order dated 18/9/2009 the petitioner’s practical examination as well as the medical examination was directed. Finally on 29/3/2010 the petitioner was informed that his application could not be considered and he, therefore, approached the Tribunal. 3. The State Government before the Tribunal pointed out that one Mr. D.D.Sagar was also a candidate who had retired from the Army and applied for the very same post on 6th August 2004. He was appointed as Police Inspector (Armourer) on 1st October 2005 when he was more than 44 years of age but had not attained the age of 45 years. It was also pointed out that Mr.Sagar had additional qualifications as Armourer Class I and he had also acquired a Diploma in Small Arms Engineering. In 3 WP-8238-2011 short it was submitted that Mr.Sagar was a better qualified person and his appointment was made before the petitioner had submitted his application on 28/11/2005. However, when the petitioner underwent the practical examination and his medical examination was ordered, he had already crossed the age of 45 years and relaxation of age beyond 45 years was not permissible. The Tribunal accepted these contentions and dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the Police Manual and as per Clause 55-A of the said Manual the procedure for appointment to the post of Police Inspector (Armourer) has been provided. The appointment is made by two different modes viz. (a) by promotion from amongst Police Inspectors (Armourer) and (b) by nomination from amongst the ex Army Officers as a special case. Under Clause 55-A(2) the age limit of 40 years has been prescribed in respect of ex servicemen with a further relaxation of five years in exceptional circumstances. There is no dispute that when the order dated 18/9/2009 was passed for the practical and medical examination of the petitioner, he had crossed the age of 47 years and he retired on completing the age of 43 years from the Armed Forces. If the State Government did not consider 4 WP-8238-2011 his case for appointment on the ground that there was no age relaxation permissible beyond the age of 45 years, no fault could be found with the said stand of the Government. As noted earlier, the Rule prescribes the higher age of 40 years for the ex servicemen and only in exceptional cases the relaxation of five years is permitted. Such a relaxation was granted to Mr.D.D. Sagar having regard to his experience and qualifications but as on 18/9/2009 the petitioner had crossed the age of 47 years and, therefore, there was no case even to consider the discretion of further relaxation beyond the age of 45 years and the Rules did not permit such a concession. We are, therefore, satisfied that the Tribunal did not err in dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner. 5. Hence the petition must fail at the threshold and the same is hereby dismissed. (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)