FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 8980 OF 2011 " Santosh Laxman Koli Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others." Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's Orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. 1 Mr. S.R. Barlinge, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. V.D. Rakh, AGP for respondents. CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI & A.V. POTDAR, JJ. DATE :- 28TH NOVEMBER, 2011. PER COURT :- 1] Admittedly, as per the advertisement, the requisite qualification was one year's experience after a candidate possesses a driving license. The petitioner's driving license is dated 8th May, 2008. The advertisement is dated 17th December, 2008. As such, the petitioner was possessing only 7 months and 7 days experience after issuance of the license. In so far as the contention of the petitioner on the basis of second proviso to Rule 6, of the relevant recruitment rules is concerned, no doubt, the said rule enables the Government on the recommendation of the selection board to relax the age limit or period of experience in favour of a candidate having exceptional qualification or experience. Nothing is placed on record to establish that the petitioner is having either an exceptional qualification or experience. In that view of the matter, we do not find that a case is made out for interference. Hence, writ petition is rejected. [A.V. POTDAR,J.] [B.R. GAVAI, J.] grt/-