1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPELATE CIVIL JURISDICTION APPELATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2934 OF 1998 WRIT PETITION NO.2934 OF 1998 WRIT PETITION NO.2934 OF 1998 Smt. Anjani Govind Gharat ..Petitioner Vs. The State of Maharashtra & 3 ors. ..Respondents ----- Mr.N.V.Bandiwadekar for Petitioner Mr.C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P. for Respondent nos.1 to 3. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO & CORAM: F.I. REBELLO & S.P. KUKDAY, JJ. S.P. KUKDAY, JJ. S.P. KUKDAY, JJ. DATE: 3RD FEBRUARY, 2005. DATE: 3RD FEBRUARY, 2005. DATE: 3RD FEBRUARY, 2005. P.C. P.C. P.C. . The petitioner had approached M.A.T. by Original Application No.205 of 1996. The Petitioner was appointed as Clerk in adhoc capacity and was being continued until services came to be terminated in 1996 on appointment of candidates regularly selected by the Regional Selection Board. On behalf of the respondent State before the Tribunal it was pointed out that earlier a similar issue was raised in original applications which had been rejected. It is also contended that the Tribunal cannot give directions to the state Government to frame a policy for regularisation. . The Tribunal held that consequent to age relaxation some of the applicant/petitioner, had applied for regularisation but they did not succeed. 2 All of them including the petitioner herein had crossed their age of 40 years. Their appointments were not regularised. They had ceased to be eligible even for adhoc appointments. The O.A. came to be dismissed. . The law is settled that Courts ordinarily cannot issue directions for framing schemes for regularisation. It will therefore be not proper for this Court to interfere in the exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction in the order of M.A.T. . Hence rule discharged. No order as to costs. (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (F.I.REBELLO,J.) (S.P. KUKDAY,J.) (S.P. KUKDAY,J.) (S.P. KUKDAY,J.)