1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANRABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 289 OF 2009 Patel Rafique Khairat .. petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondent. --- Mr. S.V. Mundhe, Advocate for petitioner. With WRIT PETITION NO. 290 OF 2009 Patel Shaikh Amir Hamid .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. ..Respondents -- with WRIT PETITION NO. 291 OF 2009 Murtujakhan Bashidkhan Pathan .. Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents. With WRIT PETITION NO. 292 OF 2009 Pathan Mohammad Mansur Mohd. Isaq. .. Petitioner versus Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents. With WRIT PETITION NO. 6463 OF 2007 Vyenkat Dattarao Gutte .. Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others. .. Respondents. --- Mr. S.V. Mundhe, Advocate for the petitioners. S/Shri S.V. Kurundkar/ Shri K.B. Choudhari Additional Govt. Pleader S/shri S.K. Kadam/ Shri P.P. More, Assistant Govt. Pleader. For respondents. 2 CORAM : A.P. DESHPANDE & N.D. DESHPANDE,JJ. DATE : 25th FEBRUARY, 2010. ORAL ORDER :- 1] Since a common question of law and fact arise for consideration in these petitions, the same are being disposed of by this common order. 2] The State of Maharashtra had extended certain benefits to the educated unemployed engineers while awarding Govt. contracts. By passage of time, the policy decison taken by the Government underwent changes. the benefits which were available to the persons covered by the said scheme were in the nature of dispensing with deposit of earnest money, 50% concession in deposit of security amount etc. The present petitioners have registered themselves as Educated Unemployed Engineers under the said scheme in the year 1996 and by the impugned order which are challenged in these petitions, the registration of the petitioners has been revoked on the ground that they had already enjoyed the benefit for period of 10 years. 3 3] The Government Resolution dated 8th February, 2007 amends the earlier policy and thereby, in the first place raises the upper limit in regard to allotment of contract for category No.5A and category No.6. Besides raising the limits for allotment of work amount, the said resolution also lays down an outer time limit for which the educated unemployed engineers can reap the benefits of the said scheme. 4] According to the respondent, the obvious object, which was sought to be achieved by the scheme was to allot works to the persons covered by the scheme so that they should not be made to face the competition and work orders were issued without making such educated unemployed engineers to compete. It is also a matter of common knowledge that over a period of time, the number of unemployed educated engineers has been on the rise. The availability of work/contracts with the Governments are limited, whereas, the persons desirous of obtaining the contracts are large in number. Every year, new Engineers pass out of the colleges and those who are unemployed, tend to register their names under the said scheme so that without competition they 4 could get the work. Obviously, the scheme is extending a helping hand to the new entrants so that they can settle themselves in life. 5] The said benefit or concession, cannot and should not be continued for all time to come, in regard to a given person because the same would tend to defeat the very object sought to be achieved by the scheme. In that view of the matter, under the Govt. Resolution dated 8th February, 2007, an outer limit is fixed for which period the persons once registered could enjoy the benefit. The outer limit so fixed is of 10 years, meaning thereby that the educated unemployed once registered would enjoy the benefit for 10 years and thereafter would cease to have the registration. 6] As stated hereinabove, the present petitioners were registered in the year 1996 and had completed 10 years period in 2006. Relying on the Govt. Resolution dated 8/2/2007, the concerned authority has revoked the registration of the present petitioners, which orders are under challenge. 5 7] We have no iota of doubt that unless and until the persons who are already registered make room for the new entrants, hardly any work would be available to the new comers. The new comers will be required to face the competition at the hands of the persons who are already registered for more than 10 years back. It is not the object of the scheme to provide the no competition zone, for a given class, for all time to come. 8] The special benefit under the Government Resolution dated 8/2/2007 restricts it for a period of 10 years. We do not find any thing wrong with the decision of the Government to revoke registration after a period of 10 years. 9] The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioners have not been allotted work to a maximum limit of 60 Lakhs and they have performed the work/contract roughly up to a sum of Rs. 30 Lakhs. In the first place, no particulars in that regard are furnished in the petition, and in the second place, we are unable to read any right in the petitioners under the Govt. Resolution or the scheme that in the event if they could not be awarded work upto the maximum limit, their registration further 6 need to be continued further till they exhaust the upper limit of the contract/work provided under the resolution. 9] We find the Government decision to restrict registration for 10 years to be just and fair. 10] In the result, there being no merit in the petitions, the writ petitions are dismissed. [N.D. DESHPANDE,J.] [A.P. DESHPANDE.J.] grt/-