1 1928.11 SQP IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1928 OF 2011 Kiran Laxman Ingale ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.166 OF 2011 Prakash Ramchandra Birajdar ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.212 OF 2011 Raghavendra Shripad Deshpande ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.213 OF 2011 Kiran Sugriv Gaikwad ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.215 OF 2011 Mahadev Bapurao Shete ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO.216 OF 2011 Arun Digambar Bhosale ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents 2 1928.11 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.291 OF 2011 Balu Mahadeo Satpute ...Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents ...... Mr.J.D.Khairnar for Petitioner. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, A.G.P. for Respondent Nos.1, 2, 5 & 6. Mr.R.M.More i/b Mr.Uday Warunjikar for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 in Wps./166/11, 212/11, 215/11. Mr.Nitin Jamdar for Respondent Nos.3 & 4 in Wps./213/11, 216/11 & 291/11. ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED:- APRIL 13, 2011. ORDER ON WRIT PETITION NOS.166, 212, 213, 215, 216 & 291 OF 2011: 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. Counsel waive notice for respective respondents. 3. As short question is involved, Petitions are taken up for final disposal forthwith, by consent. 4. In our opinion, these Petitions can be disposed of on the basis of the 3 1928.11 decision of this Court dated November 5, 2009 in Writ Petition No. 6215/2009 and companion matters. The grievance made by the petitioners before us is that the examination results of the concerned petitioners have not been released primarily on the ground that the concerned petitioners are ineligible to be appointed on the post of Health Worker (Arogya Sevak) being age bar. The identical grievance was considered by this Court in the case of Shri Sandip D.Borse vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. in Writ Petition No.6215/2009 and companion cases decided on November 5, 2009. This Court in Paragraph No.4 of the order observed that in view of the peculiar position, the case of the seasonal spraying candidates though they would apply to the post of Health Worker should be treated as in the case of in-service candidates and not apply the age bar of 30 years as one time measure. Even the present petitioners were appointed as seasonal spraying candidates prior to 2003 which fact is not disputed by the respondents. Whereas, the rules came into force in the year 2003. For that reason, even in the earlier decision, the Court observed that benefit be extended to petitioners and similarly placed candidates without applying the age bar of 30 years as one time measure. Adopting the same logic, the petitioners before us are also entitled to be treated as in-service candidates by the Committee and their applications processed accordingly. 4 1928.11 5. We, therefore, dispose of these Petitions by directing the Committee to process the applications of the petitioners before us as in-service candidates without applying the age bar of 30 years as a special case and take the same to its logical end on its own merits. The applications of the concerned petitioners be decided on its own merits subject to above. That be done as expeditiously as possible. In any case, not later than six weeks from today. 6. Petitions disposed of on the above terms. ORDER ON WP/1928/2011: 1. Insofar as this Petition is concerned, the ground on which the petitioner’s claim has been rejected by the Committee is that the application filed by the petitioner was defective. The application filed by the petitioner was for being appointed on the post of Health Worker in open category. Although the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category, he made application for being appointed in open category as no post was available in the reserved category. However, the petitioner paid only Rs.100/- towards application fees instead of Rs.200/-. In other words, the application was 5 1928.11 incomplete when it was presented to the concerned Authority. The fact that the petitioner was allowed to appear in the written test examination does not take the matter any further. The application being incomplete, deserved to be rejected at the threshold. 2. In the circumstances, the petitioner cannot be now permitted to cure the said defect, which would be contrary to the conditions stipulated in the advertisement inviting applications. We are inclined to take this view as it is possible that other applications must have been rejected by the Authority for same or similar reason but have not chosen to approach this Court for permitting them to cure the defect. 3. Taking any view of the matter, the Petition is devoid of merits. The same is rejected. (MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.)