1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8808 OF 2009 Baliram s/o Vithal Biradar, Age-30 years, Occu:Service, R/o.Aundha, Tq-Nilanga, Dist-Latur. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Ministry of Energy, Mantralaya, Mumbai, 2) Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., "Prakashgad", Bandra (East), Mumbai 51, Through its Managing Director. 3) Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd., Senapati Bapat Road, Pune, Through its Managing Director. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.S.S. Jadhavar Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.V.D. Godbharale, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.A.S. Bajaj Advocate for Respondent No.2. ... 2 CORAM: A.M. KHANWILKAR AND S.S. SHINDE, JJ. DATE: 22ND JANUARY, 2010 COURT'S ORDER (PER A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.) : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing at the stage of admission itself. 2. Briefly stated, it is admitted position that on the date specified in the impugned advertisement i.e. 21st December, 2009, the Petitioner was only 30 years 6 months and 01 day old. It is also common ground that the Petitioner has undergone training and apprenticeship in the University of Pune during the period from 15th October, 2007 to 14th October, 2008. 3. Applying the 3rd Note in the advertisement in question, which provides that training and 3 apprenticeship period shall be reckoned to relax the age limit of 30 years of the prospective applicant, the Petitioner would be covered by the said condition. In as much as the Petitioner would be entitled to additional one year period spent for the training and apprenticeship, which means that on the specified date in the advertisement, the Petitioner ought to be less than 31 years of age as on 21st December, 2009. Admittedly the Petitioner was 30 years 6 months and 01 day old on that date. 4. In this view of the matter, the Petition ought to succeed and the Respondent No.2 would be obliged to consider the application of the Petitioner on merits, along with other applicants, in accordance with law. 5. To get over this position, the only argument of the Respondent No.2 is that the information furnished on the web-site of the Respondent No.2 company in the form of 'frequently asked 4 questions' at sr. no.28 clearly stipulated that the applicant must have completed the training and apprenticeship with the erst-while Management (M.S.E.B.) or the Respondent No.2 Distribution Company. Indeed, the document referred to by the Respondent No.2 company does mention that fact. It is also common ground that the Petitioner has completed the training and apprenticeship from Pune University. However, the question is whether the claim of the Petitioner can be decided on the basis of the said document. In our opinion, as it is common ground that such condition was not prescribed either in the impugned advertisement or the application form itself, it would result in change of terms and conditions notified/ advertised for inviting the applications. Moreover, the Respondent No.2 has not been able to show any contemporaneous record to indicate that such condition had received due approval of the appropriate Authority of the Respondent No.2. 6. In that view of the matter, we have no 5 hesitation in taking the view that insofar as this Petitioner is concerned, his application will have to be considered on the basis of terms and conditions specified in the impugned advertisement as also the application form. As per the said terms and conditions, the Petitioner would be eligible to apply as he was less than the relaxable age on the relevant date and covered by the class of candidates envisaged in Note No.3. 7. Accordingly, this Petition would succeed. The Respondent No.2 is, therefore, directed to accept the application form of the Petitioner for the post of junior operator and junior technician, to which for the view we have expressed hitherto, as he would qualify the eligibility criteria provided in the advertisement and application form in question. The Respondent No.2 shall allow the Petitioner to participate in the selection process along with other eligible candidates by treating him as eligible candidate and not over-age. 6 8. Rule is made absolute on the above terms. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.] asb/JAN10/wp8808.09