1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 917 OF 2010 Swapnil Madhavrao Purandare and another .. Petitioners Versus 1. The State of Maharashtra and others .. Respondents Shri J. S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri S. K. Kadam, A.G.P. for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Shri S. T. Shelke, Advocate for the Respondent No. 3 and 4. Shri S. K. Shinde, Advocate for the Respondent No. 5. Shri S. R. Barlinge, Advocate for the Respondent No. 6. CORAM : P. V. HARDAS AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 25TH JUNE, 2010. PER COURT : . Pursuant to an advertisement which was published in the news paper on 21.06.2009, the petitioners along with others submitted their applications for the post of Multi Purpose Health Worker from the category of (Seasonal Spraying Workers). In the said advertisement 31 posts were reserved for open category 2 candidates and the petitioners were fine their appointment from open category. The petitioners accordingly appeared in the written examination and as the names of the petitioners were not displayed in the list of the candidates who had successfully passed the written examination, the petitioners after much strenuous efforts were able to obtain the number of marks secured by each of the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. The petitioners have appended to this petition the list of the candidates as well as the marks obtained by the petitioners. The aforesaid list certainly indicates that the petitioners had successfully passed in the written examination. The petitioners, therefore, have filed the present petition and have joined the last two candidates from the open category who had been appointed some time in August 2009. 2. On notice being issued to the respondents, the respondents have filed their affidavit in reply and it is urged before us by the respondents that the petitioners were not eligible as the petitioners did not fulfil Clause 18 of the advertisement which mandate the submission of the certificate of the candidate as having worked as multi purpose health worker (Seasonal Spraying Worker) and the certificate should indicate the treasury account number from which the salary of each candidate was 3 paid. The petitioners have annexed to their petition copies of the experience certificates which were issued to both the petitioners. The experience certificate pertaining to the petitioner No. 1 discloses that for the period 01.10.2006 to 15.10.2006 and from 24.08.2007 to 04.09.2007, no treasury number is disclosed in the said certificate. Similarly in respect of the petitioner No. 2, for the period 01.04.2006 to 15.04.2006, 20.04.2006 to 30.04.2006 and 18.06.2006 to 26.06.2006, the treasury numbers are not disclosed. The requirement of the advertisement was that the multi purpose health workers (Seasonal Spraying Worker) ought to have worked for 90 days. If the said period for which the treasury number is not disclosed, is omitted from consideration, the petitioners did not fulfil the condition of 90 days employment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged before us that by virtue of the order issued by the competent authority the salary of the petitioners was paid from the account of National Rural Health Mission and therefore, no treasury number was disclosed. 4. According to us, though it is unfortunate, but the fact remains that the petitioners did not fulfil the eligibility as prescribed under the advertisement. This Court exercising writ 4 jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot relax the eligibility condition nor can it carve out any exception in respect of eligibility. In that light of the matter, therefore, we dismiss the writ petition summarily with no order as to costs. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ P. V. HARDAS, J.] bsb/June 10