1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.139 OF 2010 1) Kulwant Vijay Sheshrao, 2) Sultane Sanjay Panditrao, 3) Kale Sanjay Vitthalrao, 4) Avhalle Arjun Machindranath, 5) Janjal Rameshwar Ramkrishna, 6) Wagh Raghunath Ananda, 7) Tupe Pandurang Gopinath, 8) Sanjay Asaram Ladda, 9) Jamkar Subhas Appasaheb, 10) Pathan Yunus Habib Khan, 11) Wadje Balaji Rajaram, 12) Bhalerao Pradip Pramod, 13) Pawar Balaji Ramji, 14) Dhone Gajanan Uttamrao, 15) Sarkate Vijay Shyamrao, 16) Wani Ghanshyam Vasant, 17) Warbhor Manishkumar Shivkumar 2 18) Shaikh Md. Ajaj Md. Sarvar 19) Shaikh Mustafa Shaikh Ibrahim, 20) Md. Abdul Bashid Md. Abdul Rashid, 21) Pathan Javedkhan Gafarkhan, 22) Chavan Vijay Ashokrao, 23) Jamdar Manoj Tukaram 24) Khadke Vikas Vishawanth, 25) Lakshe Kishore Mohanrao, 26) Pingle Suryakant Ramrao, 27) Bhoyate Rajkumar Haridas, 28) Jawale Mukund Balasaheb 29) Panchal Jyotiram Dasu, 30) Kadam Rajendra Mahadeo, 31) Shaikh Iqbal Shaboddin, 32) Korekar Rajesh Dhanaji, 33) Bhavare Baliram Hariram, 34) Balekar Sayaji Bhaurao 35) Sabir Ahmad Khan, 36) Vithal Kakasaheb Tulsiram, 37) Londhe Sunder Pandu, 38) Jadade Bhimrao Manik, 3 39) Jadhav Prakash Radhkrishna, 40) Rakh Sunil Sukhdev, 41) Mangule Sanjay Bhimashankar, 42) Siddiqui Fahim Maksud, 43) Aamge Bharat Ganesh, 44) Narache Netaji Pralhadrao, 45) Dapake Bibhishan Tukaram, 46) Dabale Suryakant Vishwanth, 47) Karbhari Dayanand Gunwantrao, 48) Kale Nanasaheb Prabhakarrao, 49) Sagar Nivruttirao Madhavrao, 50) Bhadarge Dilip Annarao, 51) Rachatte Vishwanath Sutrappa, 52) Anusaya d/o Annarao Sawant, 53) Kolpe Balasaheb Dattatraya, 54) Kendre Laxman Sambhaji, 55) Hendge Rajiv Raosaheb, 56) Dhembre Devnath Vitthalrao, 57) Barsale Babasaheb Rameshwar, 58) Devappa Sanjay Chandrappa, 59) Patel Taswar Husain Shaikh Isaq, 60) Thorave Ambadas Arjun, 4 61) Shaikh Jamil Shaikh Chhotu Miya, 62) Anant Vishwasrao Chavan, 63) Pravin Nivrutti Bharambe, 64) Bhaskar Sampatrao Tate, 65) Sanjay Abasaheb Garud, 66) Nitin Waman Khachane. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The State of Maharashtra, Through Ministry of Energy, Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032, 2) The Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd., Through its Human Resources Department) "Prakashgad" Plot No.C-19, "E" Block, 7th Floor, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051, 3) The Chief Engineer, Aurangabad Zone, Vidyut Bhavan, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marg, Aurangabad. 4) The Chief Engineer, Latur Zone, Administrative Building, 1st Floor, Old Vidyut Kendra Area, Sale Galli, Latur. 5 5) The Chief Engineer, Jalgaon Zone, Vidyut Bhavan, Old M.I.D.C. Ajanta Road, Jalgaon. 6) The Chief Engineer, Nanded Zone, New Mondha, Hingoli GAte, Annabhau Sathe Chowk, Nanded. 7) The Chief Engineer, Kolhapur Zone, Administrative Building, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur, 8) The Chief Engineer, Nasik Zone, Vidyut Bhavan, Nashik Road, Nashik. 9) The Chief Engineer, Pune Zone, Administrative Building, Rasta Peth, Pune. 10)The Chief Engineer, Nagpur Zone, Vidyut Bhavan, Katol Road, Nagpur. 11)The Chief Engineer, Nagpur City Zone, Prakash Bhavan, Link Road, Sadar, Nagpur. 12)The Chief Engineer, Bhandup City Zone, Vidyut, Lal Bahadur Shastri Marg, Bhandup, Mumbai, 6 13)The Chief Engineer, Kalyan Zone, "Tejshri", Jahagir Maidan, Karnik Road, Kalyan. 14)The Chief Engineer, Kokan Zone, Ratnagiri, New Administrative Building, Nachane Road, Ratnagiri, 15)The Chief Engineer, Amaravati Zone, Akola, Ratanlal Plot, Akola, Akola. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Mr.N.N. Chitlange Advocate for Petitioners. Mr.V.D. Godbharale, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1. Mr.A.S. Bajaj Advocate for Respondent No.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. 2. In this Petition, the Petitioners have set up 7 challenge on the same basis as in companion Writ Petition heard today along with this Writ Petition being Writ Petition No.138 of 2010, to the upper age limit of 30 years prescribed by the Respondent No.2 in respect of open category candidates to fill up the post of junior operator and technician and for further relief to direct the Respondent No.2 to condone the age gap occurred due to the policy of the Government itself of ban on recruitment operating since the year 1999 and instead allow the Petitioners to apply for recruitment after condonation of the age bar. The Petitioners have also set up other challenges in this Writ Petition. However, during the course of hearing we observed that it would be necessary to examine the other issues only if the Petitioners were to succeed in their challenge to the age bar prescribed by the Respondent No.2 and not otherwise. In other words, it is only if the Petitioners were to be treated as eligible due to being within the age limit, the other reliefs claimed by the Petitioners such as holding of 8 written technical competency test instead of trade test for recruitment process or necessity of preparing zone-wise merit list and/or to prepare common merit list of all the 13 zones for the concerned post and in relation to other eligibility norm, would become relevant. 3. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that on the relevant date referred to in the advertisement i.e. 21st December, 2009 all the Petitioners herein had crossed the upper age limit of 30 years. Not only that even if the period spent by the Petitioners towards training and apprenticeship was to be added to the upper age limit of 30 years keeping in mind Note No.3 in the impugned advertisement, each of the Petitioners had crossed the relaxable age limit of 31 years on the specified date i.e. 21st December, 2009. In that view of the matter all the Petitioners in this Petition were admittedly over aged on 21st December, 2009 and would be thus ineligible to participate in the selection process. 9 4. Insofar as the challenge to the age bar of 30 years prescribed by the Respondent No.2, the grounds pressed into service during the course of argument by the counsel for the Petitioners were the same as that in the companion matter being Writ Petition No.138 of 2010. We have already elaborately considered the said grounds in the separate order pronounced in that case. For the same reasons, the challenge to the bar of upper age limit of 30 years specified by the Respondent No.2 will have to be rejected even in the present Petition. As a necessary consequence, even the present Petition ought to fail. 5. As aforesaid, although other issues have been raised in this Petition, in our opinion, since the Petitioners have failed on the first question about upper age limit and having regard to the finding that each of the Petitioners in this case would exceed the maximum age limit provided in the advertisement including the relaxable period, it 10 would not be necessary to burden this order with the said issues. 6. Accordingly, this Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.] asb/JAN10/wp139.10