1 WP No.6832/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD Writ Petition No.6832 Of 2010 Shaurao s/o Tukaram Ausarmal. .. Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra And Others. .. Respondents. -------- Shri. Shrikant R. Jedhe, Advocate, for petitioner. Smt. A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Shri. R.T. Nagargoje, Advocate, for respondent No.6. -------- CORAM: NARESH H PATIL & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE: 5th JANUARY 2011 PER COURT : 1) Heard. 2) Petitioner has voluntarily retired from service in the year 1998 as Naik from the office of respondent No.5 - District Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies Beed. Petitioner's contention is that since after retirement the petitioner took steps for getting his son appointed in place 2 WP No.6832/2010 of the petitioner in view of the policy adopted by the State Government under Government Circulars dated 14th April 1981 and 10th December 1981. As the authorities did not consider the application filed, the petitioner approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No.167 of 2007. 3) By an order dated 10-12-2009 the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dismissed the Original application. This petition raises challenge to the said order of the Tribunal. 4) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in cases of other employees who were similarly situated, their sons were appointed but the petitioner's son was refused appointment by the concerned authorities. It is submitted that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the Original Application. The reasoning adopted by the Tribunal is not in consonance with the scheme of the State. 3 WP No.6832/2010 5) The learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that there is abnormal delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching the Tribunal. The Tribunal was right in observing that the Original Application is barred by limitation. Even on merits, the learned Assistant Government Pleader submits that the date of birth of petitioner's son is 7th April 1971, and at this stage, in view of the peculiar facts of this case, no relief could be granted to the petitioner. 6) We have considered the submissions advanced, perused the order passed by the Tribunal and the relevant material. We do not notice patent error in the view adopted by the Tribunal to the effect that from the date of communication made to the petitioner, the filing of the Original Application was beyond period of limitation. On merits the Tribunal considered the relevant Government Resolutions / Circulars and found that the petitioner has no vested right to claim appointment in favour of his son. 7) We find that the petitioner filed application for appointment of his son after near about 8 to 9 years of his 4 WP No.6832/2010 retirement. By this time, near about more than 12 years have passed since after retirement of the petitioner. Even on merits, in view of the policy adopted by the State, the petitioner's son would not get vested right of being appointed. In view of the facts of the case no interference is called in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8) The writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.) (NARESH H PATIL, J.) rsl