(1) WP 6316.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.6316 OF 2011 Shaikh Fahimoddin Shaikh Saeedoddin PETITIONER VERSUS Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. through Chief Engineer, Nanded RESPONDENT ..... Mr. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the respondent ..... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 07TH DECEMBER, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, heard finally. 2. Even though the petitioner was duly selected for the post of Junior Operator, he has been denied selection on the ground that he is not entitled to relaxation of two years, inasmuch as he has passed the Apprenticeship examination after the cut-off date of filing the application. 3. Shri Bajaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent vehemently opposes the Petition. He submits that since the apprenticeship (2) WP 6316.2011 examination is passed after the cut-off date, i.e. the last date of filing the application, he is not entitled to the relaxation of the period during which he was an apprentice. 4. Note 3 to the advertisement states that insofar as the apprenticeship is concerned, such a candidate would be entitled for the relaxation, for the period during which he was an apprentice. The guidelines issued by the respondent Board itself and specifically clause 52 would reveal that a trainee candidate would mean that a candidate who after his completion of I.T.I. examination has done the apprenticeship. Indisputably, the document annexed at Exhibit "D" to the Petition, which is a document issued by the respondent-Company itself, reveals that the petitioner has completed his apprenticeship for a period between 12.04.2007 to 11.04.2009. Nowhere, it is specified that unless a apprenticeship examination is passed, the same cannot be considered as eligibility for getting relaxation for the upper age limit. 5. A plain reading of the said note would (3) WP 6316.2011 reveal that a candidate would be entitled for relaxation of age for the period during which he was undergoing training. Indisputably, the petitioner has undergone the training for a period of two years and that too with the respondents. Said training has come to an end prior to the cut-off date. 6. In that view of the matter, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of note no.3 in the advertisement. Indisputably, if the petitioner is given that benefit, he would come within the upper age limit. 7. Accordingly, rule is made absolute by directing the respondents to issue appointment order to the petitioner, within a period of four (4) weeks from today. Sd/- Sd/- [M. T. JOSHI, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.] arp/