bsb IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO. 9342 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 9342 OF 2007 PETITION NO. 9342 OF 2007 Miss Sangole Rani ... Petitioner v/s Union of India & anr. ... Respondents Mr.Manoj S. Chalage for the petitioner. Mr.T.J.Pandian for the respondents. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: J.N.PATEL AND J.N.PATEL AND J.N.PATEL AND SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. MHATRE, JJ. DATED: DATED: DATED: 12TH FEBRUARY, 2008. 12TH FEBRUARY, 2008. 12TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C.: 1. Heard. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents tendered his affidavit in reply. The same is taken on record, copy is furnished to the other side. 3. The petitioner filed this petition impugning the decision of the respondents in rejecting the application of the petitioner for being appointed as Trade Apprentice. It is the case of the petitioner that though she qualifies for being appointed as a Trade Apprentice and the required percentage of marks, the 2 respondents have rejected her application. 4. The respondents, vide notification dated 1.11.2006, invited applications for conducting screening test of trade apprentices in different trades for total 18 posts i.e. Open 9 posts, Schedule Castes 3 posts, Scheduled Tribes 1 post and Other Backward Class 5 posts, for which essential qualification was that candidate should have secured 50% marks in his matriculation examination and the application should be accompanied by School Leaving Certificate and marksheet of S.S.C. examination and should be between the age of 15 to 20 years as on 1.10.2006 (in case of I.T.I. passed candidates, the upper age limit was to be relaxed by 2 years) and in case of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes candidates 5 years and for Other Backward Class the relaxation given was 3 years. 5. It is the case of the respondents that as the petitioner, at the time of applying for the said screening test for Trade Apprentice, failed to submit the S.S.C. marksheet and only School Leaving Certificate was produced which did not contain the aggregate percentage of marks, therefore, her application was not considered. 3 6. It is also the contention of the respondents that, out of 29 eligible candidates, 18 were found suitable for empanellment but out of the candidates who were approved by the competent authority, 3 candidates did not turn up for taking the appointment. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted secondary school leaving certificate issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Tamilnadu which did consists of marks obtained by the petitioner and as the petitioner obtained 442 marks out of 500, she was qualified for being considered as eligible for being empanelled for appointment as Trade Apprentice. On going through the document which is annexed to the petition at Exh."C", it is quite evident that the authorities got misled on this aspect as the secondary school leaving certificate issued by the Board includes the marks, the respondents considered it only as the school leaving certificate and did not consider the marks obtained by the petitioner in the examination. The respondents have now verified it from the concerned school and in their affidavit in reply have accepted that the petitioner’s aggregate percentage comes to more than 88% and, therefore, the petitioner was eligible to be considered for screening at the point of time the 4 same was conducted. But it is submitted that because of passage of time she has crossed the age limit of 23 years and, therefore, now she cannot be considered. 8. We find that, in case the respondents had any doubt in the matter, they could have very well issued a query to the petitioner in this regard. Otherwise for no fault of the petitioner she has been deprived of the opportunity to be considered as a Trade Apprentice. 9. There is no dispute over the matter that on the date when her application was taken up for consideration, she met all the criteria i.e. educational qualifications and age which made her eligible for being considered. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case of the petitioner can be considered sympathetically and in the affidavit in reply which is filed by the Chief Workshop Manager, Central Railway, Manmad, it has been stated that the petitioner’s case would be put up to the competent authority and on approval of the competent authority it would be considered in accordance with the extant rules. 11. In our view, as the petitioner is not at fault she should not be punished merely because due to passage of 5 time she has crossed the prescribed age limit which can be very well condoned. We, therefore, dispose of this petition with a direction to the respondents to take a decision in the matter of empanellment of the petitioner as a Trade Apprentice with them within a period of four weeks from the date of our decision. 12. Petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. (J.N. (J.N. (J.N. PATEL, J.) PATEL, J.) PATEL, J.) (SMT.NISHITA (SMT.NISHITA (SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J.) MHATRE, J.) MHATRE, J.)