1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION STAMP NO.16803 OF 2009 Vishwanath Purshottam Kelkar : Petitioner versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr. : Respondents. Mr. Naveen Chomal for the Petitioner. Mr.Vinay Masurkar, GP, for the Respondent No.1. CORAM : S B MHASE & R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 21st July 2009 P.C. 1. Heard Shri Chomal the learned counsel for the Petitioner. 2. The post of Assistant Municipal Commissioner (Ward Officer), under Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation in the Municipal Superior Service was advertised. It appears that by the said advertisement the applications were invited for filling 10 posts out of which 6 posts were reserved for open, 3 posts reserved for Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Castes converts to Buddhism and 1 post for Other Backward Communities. The Petitioner is from open category. He was serving in 2 Thane Municipal Corporation and, therefore he was not an employee of the Brihan Mumbai Municipal Corporation. He has crossed age of 40 as on 1st July 2008. There was age bar and therefore, he could not be considered. In spite of that he has made an application probably relying upon Clause 4.3 of the said advertisement which states thus :- “4.3 :-Age limit may be relaxed in favour of candidates with exceptional qualification and/or experience.” Relying upon this clause 4.3 the Petitioner is seeking direction or writ that the Respondent No.2 viz M.P.S.C. may be directed to relax the bar of age limit in favour of the Petitioner in terms of clause 4.3 of the advertisement. The Petitioner states that he is possessed of educational qualification i.e. Degrees of B.Com., Master in Human Resource Development Management, LL.B and, therefore, according to him, he is having exceptional qualifications and, therefore direction as prayed for may be issued. The Petitioner has made a reference to one candidate Mr.Anil Lad and averred that the said candidate Mr Anil Lad is having qualification of M.E., M.B.A. And LL.B and that in his case relaxation has been granted. 3 3. Assuming for a moment that such relaxation has been granted, the pleading in the above Petition is to the effect that the said Anil Lad is more or less on equal footing with the Petitioner, the Petitioner has not averred that the Petitioner and the said candidate Mr.Anil Lad stand on a similar footing or their cases are identical and they have been discriminated. That is not the case made out by the Petitioner in the above Petition. No specific ground to that effect has been made out. 4. Apart from that, the question of what should be the exceptional qualification and what should be the exceptional experience for the purposes of relaxation is a matter to be considered by the Respondent No.2. Directions to relax the age cannot be given by this Court in writ jurisdiction. 5. Apart from that, we find that the Petitioner is presently under suspension for the misconduct or prosecution launched against him. Though there is a presumption of innocence until conviction. Considering the pendency of the prosecution against the Petitioner, we are of the view that the Petitioner is not entitled to relaxation under clause 4.3 of the said advertisement. 4 6. Viewed from any angle, there is no merit in the above Petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. 7. It has been brought to our notice that the Petitioner has paid deficit court fee. The Petitioner is directed to pay the Court fee in accordance with law. sd/- sd/- [R.M.SAVANT, J] [S.B.MHASE, J]