1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.8764 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or Judge’s Orders Shri H.I.Pathan,Adv.for petitioner Shri S.K.Tambe,AGP for respondents CORAM : B.R.GAVAI & A.A.SAYED,JJ DATE : 28/09/2010 1] By way of present petition, petitioner claims that since Government of Maharashtra has increased the age of retirement of the Doctors working under the Directorate of Medical Research and Education, the same should also be increased in the case of the petitioners, who are working under the Director of Health Services. 2] The Doctors working in the Directorate of Medical Research and Education are basically involved in a teaching profession, whereas, the Doctors working under the Directorate, Health 2 Services, are working in field. The employees working under the Medical Education Department and employees working under the Public Health Department, form a separate class. Merely because for one set of class, retirement age has been increased to 62 years ipso-facto would not entitle the members of this class to get same age of retirement. 3] In any case, the matter pertains to the domain of policy of the State Government. Unless it is found that the policy of the State Government is arbitrary, irrational and illogical, it is not permissible for this Court while sitting under its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the same. In any case while exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not supposed to issue a direction to the State Government, to form a policy in a particular manner. 4] In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the Petition in the extra 3 ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Petition is dismissed. 5] The petitioner, however, is always at liberty to represent to the State Government and the dismissal of the present Petition would not come in the way of the State Government in considering the representation of the petitioner for increase in the age of retirement. [A.A.SAYEDJ.] [B.R.GAVAI,J.] umg/wp8764-10