1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7400 OF 2010 Brijlal s/o Babu Patil ... PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & ors. ... RESPONDENTS ..... Shri D.R. Irale Patil, Advocate for the petitioner Shri K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for State ..... CORAM: R.S. MOHITE & SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, JJ. DATED: 23rd August, 2010 PER COURT : 1. This is a petition filed by the petitioner impugning an order dated 19.5.1992, and for providing benefits of the post of Sectional Engineer from 1.4.1984 instead of 1.4.1987. We are not inclined to entertain this petition for two reasons:- (a) The first reason is that, the petition has been filed in the year 2010 i.e. 18 years after passing of the impugned order dated 19.5.1992. (b) We are also informed that the petitioner retired in the year 2002. The petition is, therefore, being filed 8 years after his retirement. There is no proper explanation of laches. 2 2. Apart from this, the petitioner relies upon a Government Resolution dated 9.6.1986. It is his contention that he is entitled to the benefit under clause I(b) of the said Government Resolution because his educational qualification is equivalent to a two year diploma. It is an admitted position that the petitioner is a holder of the "Sub- Oversear's Course" prescribed under the scheme of short term courses to Assistant to Extension Officer. He has passed the said course in August 1965. The training period of the said course is one year. In order to show that this course of one year is equal to a diploma course of two years, the petitioner relies upon document dated 3.1.2003, issued by the Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education. On perusal of the said letter, it is seen that it is not a decision but merely a recommendation. 3. The Advocate for the petitioner has relied upon a comparative table to contend that some other Oversears were treated in the Grade of Sectional Engineer after seven years. The table does not indicate their educational qualifications. Taking into account this factual aspect, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. Therefore, petition is dismissed. (SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.) (R.S. MOHITE, J.) fmp/wp7400.10