1 wp3523.09.odt FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3523/2009 ( Sou. Sujata Pise ..V/s.. The Chief Executive Officer, Nagpur Zilla Parishad, Nagpur ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. A.K. Rewatkar, counsel for petitioner. Mr. N.M. Jibhkate, counsel for respondent no.2. Mr. V.N. Patre, counsel for respondent no.3. CORAM : D.D. SINHA & F.M. REIS JJ. DATE : 8 th DECEMBER , 2009 . Heard Mr. Rewatkar learned counsel for petitioner, Mr. Jibhkate learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Mr. Patre learned counsel for respondent no.3. The grievance of petitioner is against the appointment of respondent no.3 as Class IV employee on contractual basis. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that the appointment of respondent no.3 is not as per the rules of the Bombay Village Panchayats Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1960. It is contended that the Rule 4-A prescribes upper and lower age limit of appointment of panchayat servants. The upper age limit as 28 years. However, respondent no.3 at the time of appointment was more than 28 years and therefore was aged barred and was not eligible to be considered for the appointment. Learned 2 wp3523.09.odt counsel for respondent no.2 disputed the fact of application of these rules so far as the contractual appointments are concerned since these rules are applicable to the permanent servants. Similar stand has been taken by respondent no.3. It is true that as per rule 2 (a) Panchayat Servant means a servant of a Panchayat appointed under section 61 of the Act and it also includes temporary servant. However, so far as the appointment of respondent no.2 is concerned it is purely contractual in nature which is not included under section 61 and therefore, in absence of any other provision which includes this category within ambit of section 61 of the Bombay Village Panchayats Act, 1958 it is difficult for us to accept this contention. The petition suffers from lack of merits. Hence the same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Tambaskar.