1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.762 OF 2010 Asru s/o Namdeo Jadhav and another .. Petitioners Versus State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and others .. Respondents Mrs.A.S.Rasal, Advocate for petitioners Mr.S.K.Tambe, A.G.P. for respondents 1 to 5 CORAM : P.V.HARDAS AND N.D.DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 12th July 2010 PER COURT : 1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order passed by the Aurangabad Bench of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, dated 30.7.2009, in Original Application No.833 of 2007. 2. The father of the petitioner who was a Class IV employee attained the age of superannuation in July 2007 and prior to his retirement, had submitted an application seeking appointment of the second petitioner by placing reliance on the Government Resolution and the Circular. The respondents did not favourably consider the application of the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner filed Original Application No.833 of 2007 2 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the order impugned in the present petition dismissed the Original Application but issued directions that since the petitioner is already registered with the employment exchange and if he applies directly in response to the recruitment notice, the petitioner be considered on merits even though he is not recommended by the employment exchange. 3. The respondents in their affidavit-in-reply have annexed the copy of the Circular dated 14.4.1981 as well as the Government Resolution issued by the respondents dated 10.12.1981. As per the Circular and the Government Resolution, it is apparent that one child of a retiring/retired Class IV employee can be appointed on a Class IV post. The aforesaid Circular and the Resolution exempt such a child from getting his name recommended through the employment exchange. The only condition is that he should hold the requisite qualification and should be registered with the employment exchange. Apart from this, the Circular does not in any manner carve out an exception in favour of such candidates permitting them to submit an application directly as soon as a vacancy occurs without the vacancy being notified through the recruitment process. 4. Mrs.Rasal, learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the Government Resolution as well as the Circular adverted to above clearly permits the presentation of an application directly and, therefore, 3 the petitioner was eligible to have been appointed for posts which are lying vacant. According to us, acceptance of such argument would amount to subverting of the entire recruitment process and would not be in consonance with the Circular and the Government Resolution. Only exception which is provided in that Government Resolution is that the child of a Class IV employee can be considered for appointment on a Class IV post without his or her name being recommended by the employment exchange. The Tribunal has accordingly observed thus and issued the directions as aforestated. Upon perusal of the findings of the Tribunal, we do not notice any perversity in the reasoning given by the Tribunal to warrant any interference in this petition. We accordingly dismiss this petition summarily with no order as to costs. ( N.D.DESHPANDE, J.) ( P.V.HARDAS, J.) (vvr/762.10wp)