1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10628 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.3482 OF 2009 Nitinkumar S/o.Chandrashekhar Swami and others APPLICANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and another RESPONDENTS Mr.S.B.Talekar, h/f. Mr.C.T.Jadhav, learned counsel for the applicants. Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, learned AGP for respondent no.1. (CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.) DATE : 08/10/2009 PER COURT : 1. Shri.Talekar, learned counsel for the petitioner makes an oral motion for joining High Court of Bombay, through its Registrar General as a respondent to the petition. Leave granted. Amendment to be carried out forthwith. 2. The applicants/petitioners have filed a Writ Petition no. 3482/2009 in this Court. The aforesaid petition was listed before the Court on 28/07/2009 and came to be adjourned at the request of 2 learned counsel for the petitioner. Thereafter when the petition was listed before the Court on 11/08/2008, none had appeared on behalf of the petitioner, and therefore the petition came to be adjourned to 25/08/2009. Thereafter, today urgent circulation of the petition was sought before us for 2.30 p.m. and thus the petition is listed before us. It appears that the petitioners had submitted their application forms pursuant to an advertisement dated 17/12/2008 inviting the applications from eligible candidates for the post of Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class. This petition had been filed on 19/01/2009 and was circulated before the Court for first time on 17/07/2009. Be that as it may, it appears that the form of first petitioner was accepted and was allowed for the written examination. The result of the written examination was declared and consequent to the declaration of the result, and since the petitioner was successful in the written examination, the petitioner was called for an interview. According to the petitioner, though he was called for interview, he was not allowed to participate in the interview on the ground that the petitioner was not eligible as the petitioner was more than 25 years of age. The challenge in this petition is in respect of the rules which came to be amended some time in the year 2008. For the purposes of deciding this application, it is not necessary for us to refer to the other rules. Suffice it to state that the rules contemplate that for fresh candidates, the age which was prescribed, was not below 21 years of age and not more than 25 years as on 01/04/2009. Since the first petitioner was over-age, he was not allowed for the interview. 3 3. This civil application is filed praying therein for issuance of directions to respondent no.2 to continue with the interview and further procedure of appointment to the post of Civil Judge, Jr.Division, and Judicial Magistrate First Class subject to the decision of the present petition and by prayer clause B, it is prayed for relaxing age criteria relating to petitioner no.1 as an exceptional case and restrain the respondents from taking any adverse action on the basis of age against the petitioner. 4. We have heard Shri.S.B.Talekar, learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners and Shri.Kurundkar, learned AGP on behalf of respondent no.1. Since the rules are in existence and no judicial order has been brought to our notice by which the rules have been stayed, we can not accede to the request of the petitioners for relaxing the age criteria. Rules have prescribed eligibility criteria, and therefore merely because a petition has been filed, would be no ground for relaxing the age criteria. In that light of the matter, there is no merit in the civil application and the civil application is dismissed. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.) khs/OCT 2009/ca10628-09