(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 1654 OF 1998 1. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Communications, Department of Telecommunication (N.C.G. Selection), Sanchar Bhavan, Delhi. 2. Chief General Manager, Maharashtra Telecom Circle, G.P.O. Building, Mumbai - 400 001. 3. The General Manager, Telecommunications, Marathwada Area, .. Petitioners Nanded - 431 601 (Original (Maharashtra). respondents) versus Shankar Singh Ram Singh, Age : Major, Occupation : - , R/o. C/o. Bhujan Singh Lashkre, Bhagat Singh Road, H.No. 4212, .. Respondent Nanded - 431 601, (Original Maharashtra. applicant) ....................... (2) Mr. Alok Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. P.V. Mandlik, Senior Advocate, for the respondent. ........................ CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 13TH JULY 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per B.R. Gavai, J.) : 1. By way of present petition, the petitioners have taken exception to the order passed by the learned Member (Judicial) of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, in Original Application No. 2 of 1997, dated 26th November 1997. 2. The respondent was working as a Casual Driver with the petitioners. It appears that the respondent worked as a Casual Driver, between 12th December 1989 to 9th August 1994, with certain interruptions. However, services of the petitioner came to be terminated, orally, with effect from 9th August 1994, and therefore, the respondent approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The application was resisted by the petitioners, on the ground that the post, which the (3) petitioner was holding, was reserved for Scheduled Caste, and the respondent / employee belongs to Nomadic Tribe and, therefore, he could not be appointed on that post. It was further contended that the respondent / employee was age barred and, therefore, he could not be appointed. 3. By the impugned order, the learned Central Administrative Tribunal has passed the following operative order: " In the circumstances, keeping in view the directions of the Headquarters, the respondents are hereby directed to consider the case of the applicant for the post of Driver. In case, the respondents appoint the applicant, in that event, age relaxation may be done in pursuance of circular dated 10-9-1991. This may be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. In the meantime, if there is any work, the department may engage the services of the applicant and not any other person, till he is regularised. " 4. The scope of interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution (4) of India, while examining the legality or otherwise, of the order passed by the Tribunal, is very limited. This Court is not expected to sit in appeal over the decision of the learned Tribunal. An interference is warranted, only when it is found that the learned Tribunal has passed order in a perverse manner or the view taken by the learned Tribunal is an impossible view. 5. It is a settled principle of law, that an ad hoc employee cannot claim regularization as a matter of right. However, the learned Tribunal has observed, that the Department itself has issued circular dated 10th September 1991, which provide that Casual Drivers and Labourers are entitled to age relaxation for the period during which they were actually wording with the Department. It is further to be noted that the learned Tribunal has not directed the respondent / employee to be appointed but only directed to consider. It has further been directed that, in the event, the respondents decide to appoint him, the case should be considered for age relaxation, in pursuance to the Circular dated 10th September 1991. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the view taken by the learned Tribunal is either perverse or impossible, so as to warrant interference. 6. In the result, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. Needless to state, that the interim relief, granted (5) earlier, stands vacated. However, parties shall bear their own costs. ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp1654