1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.7988 OF 2009 Varsha D/o Kundlik Nirmal. ... Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra And Others. ... Respondents. -------- Shri. S.P. Deshmukh, Advocate for petitioner. Shri. V.H. Dighe, Assistant Government Pleader for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Shri. N.L. Jadhav, Advocate for respondent No.3. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE: 7th JULY, 2010 PER COURT : 1) Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2) The petitioner was below 18 years of age when she applied. In spite of the same, 2 the petitioner was allowed to appear in the selection process and issued selection letter. Later on it was found that the petitioner was below 18 years of age, therefore, she was not appointed. 3) The learned counsel Shri. S.P. Deshmukh submits that the petitioner was qualified to be appointed. The petitioner is now above 18 years of age. The counsel further submits that disqualification based on age criterion is arbitrary and therefore directions are sought from this Court to the respondents to appoint the petitioner. 4) We have perused advertisement. One of the essential conditions in the advertisement is that applicant shall not be below 18 years of age on the last date of the application. Admittedly the petitioner was below 18 years on the date of the application. 3 This itself, in our view, dis-entitles the petitioner for making application. 5) In case the authorities had accepted the application and had gone ahead with the selection process that would not cure the inherent deficiency. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to exercise extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner is entitled to participate in the future selection process. 6) The writ petition is rejected. Sd/- Sd/- (K.K. TATED, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl/ wp.7988.2009