1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6329 OF 1997 Shri. Mukund Pandurang Vartak .. Petitioner Vs The Executive Engineer, Sangli and others .. Respondents Shri. S.B. Deshpande for the petitioner Shri. Vijay Patil for respondent nos. 1 and 2 Shri. R.S. Nargolkar, AGP for State CORAM : BILAL NAZKI & SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : 18th June, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition challenges the order passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal in Original Application No. 719 of 1995. The case of the petitioner was that he was working as a Civil Engineering Assistant. He was eligible to be promoted and also for grant of exemption to pass the departmental examination. The petitioner is an ITI trained, neither possesses degree nor diploma in engineering, RMA wp6329-97.sxw 2 therefore, he sought leave from the Tribunal that in terms of a Government Resolution, he was entitled to exemption of passing departmental examination on attaining age of 45 years. He had made such a request to the respondent which has been rejected. 3. When the matter came up before the Tribunal on 13th November 1995, the petitioner did not appear before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had decided the application on merits in his absence. Thereafter, review was filed. Review was also rejected by order dated 4th April, 1997. The Tribunal was of the view that there were two Government Resolutions: by one Government Resolution, exemption to sit in examination could be given but it was a departmental examination; and another Government Resolution which was applicable to the petitioner related to the professional examination. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed in which the respondents have stated that the resolution to which reference has been made by the petitioner allows the government to grant exemption from passing department examination to those who have completed age of 45 years but this resolution would not apply in case of the petitioner because the examination which needed to be passed by the petitioner had to be passed and the respondents had no power to grant any exemption. It RMA wp6329-97.sxw 3 is further submitted that the departmental examination referred to in the resolution dated 1st November, 1977 and professional examination referred in resolution dated 16th September 1964 are dealing with two different situations and cannot be mixed with one another. It is further stated that the petitioner was appointed as a Civil Engineer Assistant which falls in the category of Technical Assistant and as per Government Resolution, the petitioner could be promoted to the post of Junior Engineer provided he had passed the professional examination. Since the petitioner had not passed the professional examination and even if exemption was granted to him from appearing in departmental examination, even then, he could not be promoted because of not having passed the professional examination. For these reasons, we do not find merit in the petition. Petition is accordingly dismissed. [ BILAL NAZKI, J] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J] RMA wp6329-97.sxw 4 RMA wp6329-97.sxw