1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1068 OF 2009 Dr. Ashok Kumar Sinha ..Petitioner versus Union of India and others ..Respondents Mr. V.Narayanan i/b Anisha Narayanan for Petitioner. Ms. Pooja Thorat i/b M.V. Kini & Co. for Respondent Nos.2 and 3. Mr Abhijit Desai for Respondent No.4. CORAM : F.I. REBELLO & A. A. SAYED , JJ. DATED : 18TH MARCH, 2010. P.C. 1 The only challenge by the petitioner to the selection of respondent No.4 is on the ground that the respondent No.4 was selected illegally as she was aged 54 at the time when she was selected. 2 After hearing the learned Counsel and on perusal of the material placed on record, we find the Executive Council of the Society noted that if the age limit of 45 was to be applied to the in house candidates they would be ineligible and thereby causing dissatisfaction. The Committee thereafter took a decision to relax the age requirement in so far as in house candidates 2 are concerned. Pursuant to that, the earlier advertisement was cancelled and a decision was taken to advertise the post afresh. The petitioner himself was aged 48 yeas at the relevant time. 3 Pursuant to the said decision an advertisement was issued. The petitioner along with respondent No.4 applied for the post and House Committee found respondent No.4 more meritorious and consequently committee selected respondent No. 4. The name of respondent No.4 was placed for consideration before the Executive Council, and that formed part of Agenda No. 84.8. There was some discussion and matter came up thereafter again at Agenda No.85.1 and 85.5 in the meeting held on 11th June, 2009 wherein the decision taken in 84th Executive Council Meeting was noted. 4 In our opinion, once the petitioner himself applied for the post knowing that age has been relaxed, when otherwise he was not eligible, unless the relaxation was considered subjected to himself to an interview, the petitioner now cannot contend that the relaxation is contrary to the recruitment rules. Once he chose to participate in the selection process and only on failure sought to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, in our opinion. he could not be allowed to do so. 3 5 Even otherwise, we find that there was no illegality considering that the Executive Council has taken a conscious decision to relax the upper age limit. In the light of that no interference is called for. 6 The petition is accordingly dismissed. (F.I. REBELLO J.) ( A. A. SAYED, J.)