1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7981 OF 2010 Neetin s/o Ramesh Bhalgat, Age: 26 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o. Indira Nagar, Lane NO.6, Near Mhasoba Temple, Sangamner, District Ahmednagar. ...PETITIONER VERSUS Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Vikrikar Bhavan, 9th Floor, Room No.915, Sardar Balwantsing Dodhi Marg, (Nesbit Road), Majgaon, Mumbai & Anr. ...RESPONDENTS WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 7991 OF 2010 Suchita d/o Ramesh Bagmare, (Suchita w/o. Nagesh Girwalkar), Age: 35 years, Occ: Advocate, R/o. Bembli, Tq. and Dist-Osmanabad. ...PETITIONER VERSUS The Additional Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Vikrikar Bhavan, 9th Floor, Room No.915, Sardar Balwantsing Dodhi Marg, (Nesbit Road), Mazgaon, Mumbai. ...RESPONDENTS 2 ... Shri. A.N. Nagargoje, Advocate for Petitioner in W.P. No.7981 of 2010. Shri. S.V. Warad, Advocate for Petitioner in W.P. No. 7991 of 2010. Shri. S.V. Kurundkar, Addl. G.P. for respondents. .... CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2010. PER COURT : 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that there is discrepancy in the advertisement and Brochure framed and issued by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (For short "M.P.S.C.") for holding examination for the post of Civil Judge, (Junior Division) & Judicial Magistrate, First Class. The petitioners were enrolled as Advocate on 03-07-2007 on the Rolls of the Bar Council of Maharashtra & Goa. 3. By referring to the provisions of Section 17 3 of the Advocates Act, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that even if a candidate expresses his intention to enroll himself as an Advocate on the Roll of Bar Council, the admission of the candidate as an Advocate would be treated effective from the date of filing of the application. The learned Counsel further submits that in the light of provisions of Brochure, the rejection of the petitioners' applications on the ground that the petitioners lack three years experience as an Advocate, requires to be set aside. 4. Shri. S.V. Kurundkar, learned Additional Government Pleader assisted the Court. In the submissions of the Counsel, in case there was any discrepancy noticed in the Brochure or advertisement, the stipulated conditions in the advertisement would prevail. 5. We have considered the submissions advanced. We have perused the applications filed by the 4 petitioners. They have mentioned the date of enrollment. In the advertisement, it is clearly stipulated that an applicant who has been practicing as an Advocate for three years till 30-06-2010, would be entitled to apply. 6. From the material placed before us, more particularly, clause 26.6 of the application and conditions of the advertisement we find that the petitioners are not entitled to apply. Both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. [K.K. TATED, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] SUT/SEP10/wp7981.10