1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 78/2007 Manoj Sitaram Rajabhoj ..vs.. District Selection Committee and Ors. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. N. S. Talmale, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V. A. Thakare, A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1,2 & 4. Ms. M. P. Munshi, Advocate for respondent no. 3. CORAM: D. K. DESHMUKH AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATED : 25 th NOVEMBER, 2008 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. One of the ground on which the petitioner has been disqualified from competing for the post of Extension Officer is that while appearing for the examination he did not obtain consent of the Local Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Rule 9 of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads District Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1967, which reads as under:- “9. Appointments of Government servants etc. to District Services: No person who is an employee of any State Government or of the Government of India or of any local authority or of any State-aided body 2 shall be eligible for being appointed by nomination to any post in any District Service unless he submits his application for such post after obtaining the consent of the State Government, the Government of India, the local authority, or, as the case may be, the State-aided body.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner accepts that the petitioner was in the service of Zilla Parishad. He also accepts that the Zilla Parishad is a Local Authority. According to him, the term “any local authority” used in Rule 9 will not include Zilla Parishad under which he was serving because according to him in Rule 3 (f) of the Rules, while prescribing larger years for being eligible to apply, the term “Zilla Parishad service” is used and not the “local authority.” 4. In our opinion, the submission is not well founded because learned counsel accepts that Zilla Parishad is local authority and because the Legislature wanted to make the provision in relation to services of every Local Authority, the term Local Authority is used in Rule 9 and in Rule 3(f) used 3 the term Zilla Parishad services because the Legislature wanted to make that provision applicable only to the persons, who are in the services of the Zilla Parishads. 5. We do not find any illegality in the reasons given by the Authority for disqualifying the petitioner. The petition has no substance. The same is, therefore, rejected. JUDGE JUDGE kahale