[-1-] VPH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION No. 8412 OF WRIT PETITION No. 8412 OF WRIT PETITION No. 8412 OF 2006 Shanta S. Jadhav ... Petitioner Vs. The Director of Medical Education & research & Ors. .... Respondents. Ms. Deepa Hatwankar with Mr. M.D. Parab, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. M.P. Thakur, for respondents. CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, CORAM: F.I. REBELLO, AND R. V. MORE, JJ. R. V. MORE, JJ. R. V. MORE, JJ. DATE : FEBRUARY 2, 2007. DATE : FEBRUARY 2, 2007. DATE : FEBRUARY 2, 2007. P.C.: . The case of petitioner is that she was in employment with respondent in between 1984 to 1994 as class IV employee. In that year, her services came to be terminated. Petitioner has approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, who has dismissed her application on the ground that the petitioner was age barred and further that she approached had MAT after a long delay. 2. Petitioner had made a representation, which is pending. If other employees similarly selected [-2-] like the petitioner have been considered, then the petitioner’s case should also be considered, without taking into consideration the factor of age bar, bearing in mind that the petitioner was employed between 1984-1994. The respondent to take decision and communicate the same to the petitioner within 8 weeks from today. With the above observation, petition is disposed off. Sd/- Sd/- [ R. V. MORE, J.] [ F.I. REBELLO,J.] R. V. MORE, J.] [ F.I. REBELLO,J.] R. V. MORE, J.] [ F.I. REBELLO,J.]