1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2819/2010 Smt.Narsabai w/o Sunil Mahakale .. PETITIONER VERSUS The State of Maharashtra and others .. RESPONDENTS .... Smt.Bharati B. Gunjal, Advocate for petitioner Shri K.G.Patil,A.G.P. for Respondent-State. .... CORAM : P.V.HARDAS & S.V.GANGAPURWALA,JJ. DATE : 27/04/2010 ORAL ORDER : This 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 31/12/2009 dismissing the Original Application filed by the petitioner. 2] The Original Application came to be filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal, seeking relief of appointment on compassionate ground. According to the petitioner, her husband 2 was serving with the third respondent and he expired on 10/7/2007 while in service. Accordingly, an application came to be filed by the petitioner, seeking appointment on compassionate ground on any Class-III or Class-IV post. The name of the petitioner came to be entered in the wait list prepared by the respondent and ultimately, her name came to be struck off from the said list, on the ground that the petitioner had attained the age of 40 years. The petitioner being thus aggrieved by the said action, approached the Tribunal. 3] The Tribunal upon consideration of the rival submissions advanced before it, came to the conclusion that the action of the respondents in removing the name of the petitioner, was justified on account of Clause 2(2) of the Government Resolution dated 23/4/2008. The aforesaid Government Resolution mandates the removal of the names of the persons seeking appointment on compassionate ground on attaining the age of 40 years. The Tribunal therefore, dismissed the said Original Application. 4] Mrs.Gunjal, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged before us that the petitioner had submitted her application and her name was entered in the wait list prior to her becoming age barred. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents could not have made the rigor of the Government Resolution applicable retrospectively. The learned Assistant Government Pleader has supported the judgment of the Tribunal. 3 5] This is not a case of the Government Resolution being made applicable retrospectively. The language of Clause 2(2) of the said Government Resolution is explicit and it directs the removal of the names of the candidates seeking appointment on compassionate ground, on attaining the age of 40 years. Since the petitioner had attained the age of 40 years, the petitioner was rendered ineligible for Government service. In that light of the matter, therefore, according to us, no interference is called for in the present Petition. The order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any perversity, warranting the exercise of writ jurisdiction. 6] In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed summarily with no orders as to costs. [S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.] [P.V.HARDAS,J.] umg/wp2819-10