1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1553 OF 2011 Sangita R. Nonhare Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ........................................................................................................................................................................ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions Court's or Judge's Order and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................................................ Shri S. U. Nemade Adv for petitioner. Shri V. A. Thakre AGP for respondent-1. Shri M. V. Mohokar Adv for respondents 2 & 3. CORAM: B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & A. P. BHANGALE JJ. DATED: 30th SEPTEMBER, 2011. Heard Shri Nemade learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Mohokar learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3 and Shri Thakre, learned AGP for respondent no.1, nobody for respondent no.4 though served. Shri Mohokar learned counsel raised preliminary objection pointing out that against Select List a complaint is provided and if the candidate is still aggrieved there after he can appeal to Chief Executive Officer. He points out that against order of Chief Executive Officer also there is further appeal. Shri Nemade learned counsel states that here not only the inclusion of name of petitioner in select list but also 2 validity of conditions particularly condition 2(D) is questioned as none of the authorities functioning under Government Circular dated 5th August 2010 can go into validity of that condition, and petition is the only remedy. We have perused the prayer clauses. We find that petitioner has assailed validity of that condition. In the circumstances it is apparent that the remedy allowed to be an alternate remedy could not have been availed by him. On merits Shri Nemade states that case of the petitioner has been looked into on merits by authorities and her name is in fact placed at Se. No. 1 in provisional list. He contends that thus petitioner is most meritorious candidate available and candidate selected is less meritorious. Shri Mohokar learned counsel points out that as petitioner is possessing three children, there was objection raised and accordingly her name was required to be deleted. He further states that condition as inserted is in accordance with the policy of Government to encourage to have small families to check population explosion and condition is, therefore, not violative of the Constitution of India. Learned AGP is supporting the argument of Shri Mohokar. It appears to be an admitted position that petitioner was the most meritorious candidate, however, it further appears 3 that as she did not satisfy requirement of Clause 2(D)(1) of Circular dated 05.08.2010 and was found to have more than two children her family could not be treated as small family. Validity of these conditions is said to be assailed by pointing out that in various enactments where similar provision has been made, cut of date has been prescribed and here there is no such exercise. It is apparent that those enactments deal with election and elections to legal authorities are regulated by Constitution . Accordingly in those matters legislature thought it appropriate to put up a cut of date. Here the matter pertains to employment and the condition is accordingly so inserted restricting the employment. The arguments advanced are not sufficient to hold that said condition is unconstitutional or violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India. We do not find any merit in the petition. Petition dismissed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE svk