1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.1619/2009 ( Smt. Jyoti Wd/o Digambar Bansod ..V/s.. State of Maharashtra, through Secretary & others ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. N.C. Phadnis, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Parihar, A.G.P. for respondent no.1. CORAM:- D.B. BHOSALE AND P. B. VARALE, JJ. DATED :- 2 nd JULY, 2010 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the communication dated 27/7/2008 rejecting her application for appointment on compassionate ground. There is no dispute that the petitioner's name was there in the waiting list maintained by the respondent for appointments on compassionate ground. Respondent no.5 has filed reply in which they have stated that in view of the Government Resolution dated 23/4/2008 her name has been removed from the waiting list since she crossed 40 years of age. Our attention was invited by learned counsel for the petitioner to the G.R. dated 23/4/2008 and submitted that 2 the said G.R. has a prospective effect and since the petitioner had applied before issuance of the G.R. she cannot be stated to have been covered by the said resolution. He has submitted that the word “now” used in the government resolution shows that the government resolution has prospective effect. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jay Mahakali Rolling Mills V/s. Union of India and others reported in (2007) 12 S.C.C. 198 and the judgment of this Court in Pranjali Films, Nashik and another V/s. State of Maharashtra and others reported in 2008 (4) Mh.L.J. 789. We have perused the government resolution dated 23/4/2008. By this resolution it was decided to remove the candidates in the waiting list who crossed 40 years of age as on the date of the resolution. This government resolution has not been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition. When we asked the learned counsel for petitioner whether the petitioner would like to challenge the resolution, his reply was in the negative. From bare perusal of the resolution dated 22/8/2005, we are satisfied that it applies to all the candidates in the waiting list dated 22/8/2005 who crossed the age of 40 3 years. Admittedly the petitioner, as on the date of the resolution, crossed 40 years of age. In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no avail to the petitioner. The writ petition accordingly fails and dismissed as such. JUDGE JUDGE Tambaskar.