1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.746 OF 2006 Prakash Dnyanoba Bhilare. ...Petitioner. Vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr. A.M. Joshi for the Petitioner. Mr. R.M. Patne, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mrs. A.A. Agarwal for Respondent Nos.3 and 4. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. October 3, 2008. P.C. The Petitioner served as a peon with the Third and Fourth Respondents. To regulate the services of employees of Private Affiliated Colleges, the State Government has prescribed the Maharashtra Non-agricultural Universities and Affiliated Colleges Standard Code (Terms and Conditions of Service of Non-teaching Employees) Rules, 1984. The relevant rule is to the following effect: “(IV) Non-Ministerial posts included in Class IV- Appointments to these posts shall be made by selection from amongst the candidates - (i) who are not less than 18 years of age and who are not 2 more than 28 years of age; and (ii) who are recommended by the concerned Employment Exchange or by the District Social Welfare Officer of the concerned District. (V) The upper age limit prescribed for these posts shall be relaxed by 5 years in case of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.” Admittedly on the date of his appointment, the Petitioner was 29 years of age. Consequently, he did not satisfy the age criterion. The upper age limit can be relaxed by five years in the case of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Admittedly, the Petitioner did not belong to any of those categories. The management had initially supported the Petitioner, but the Joint Director of Education has pointed out that the age requirement under the Rules could not be relaxed in the case of the Petitioner. Following a notice to show cause, the services of the Petitioner came to be terminated. During the pendency of the proceedings before the University and College Tribunal, the management has filed an affidavit stating that the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules was not followed and that the post in which the Petitioner was appointed was 3 not a sanctioned and a regular post. The Tribunal cannot be faulted for coming to the conclusion that there was no merit in the appeal of the Petitioner when admittedly he did not fulfill the requirement as to age that was prescribed under the Rules. The Petitioner has no vested right. A backdoor entry into service cannot be allowed. As a non-teaching employee of an Institution governed by the Rules, the Petitioner would have to fulfill the requirement of the rules. Not having fulfilled the requirements, the services of the Petitioner could not be continued. The Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal. There is no merit in the petition which shall accordingly stand dismissed. .....