1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.987 OF 2009 Mr.Jitendra H. Chavan & Ors. ...Petitioners. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. Ms. Gayatri Singh with Seema Chopda and T.R.Yadav, advs. For the Petitioners. Mr.J.S.Saluja, AGP For the Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : F.I.REBELLO & J.H. BHATIA, JJ. DATED : 20th January , 2010. P.C. 1 We have heard the learned counsel for the Parties. Petitioners have approached this Court contending that action of the respondents in not condoning the delay in filing the Original Application before the Tribunal discloses an error of law apparent on the face of the record. Respondents have filed reply. In the said reply, it would appear that directions of the Tribunal as contained in the order dated 12th January, 2004 in the O.A.No.400 of 2003 have been complied with by the respondents. Petitioners had applied in the year 2006. Their applications were rejected. Petitioners had directly applied in 2005 pursuant to the advertisement. Applications of 3 petitioners were rejected 2 on the ground of not complying with the requirements. 2 Though really speaking in so far as the order of the Tribunal is concerned, if there would be non-compliance, that would amount to recurring cause of action. However, considering the facts and circumstances, in our opinion, this would not be fit case to exercise extraordinary writ jurisdiction, the impugned order does not suffer from any error of law on the face of the record and consequently, the petition stand rejected. (J.H. BHATIA,J.) (F.I.REBELLO, J.)