1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 6175 OF 2007 *** 1. We have heard learned counsel Smt. M. A. Deshpande who appears for the Petitioner and Mr. S. K. Kadam who appears for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well. 2. Rule, made returnable forthwith, heard finally with the consent of the parties. 3. Four petitioners, on the date of filing of this writ petition, claiming to be working as Special Assistant Public Prosecutors at respective places, have approached to this Court with following prayers: "15. The petitioners, therefore, prays that: (a) .... .... .... (b) The Respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners valid by extending them the benefit of age relaxation, by treating them as in-service candidates. (c) .... .... ... (d) Any other suitable and equitable relief to which the petitioner is found entitled to, may kindly be granted in his 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. favour." 4. This petition appears to have been filed on 24th October, 2007. Respondent No.2 seems to be the main contestant. On behalf of Respondent No.2, short affidavit in reply is filed (page 30). It has been affirmed by one Smt. Nilima Sharad Patwardhan, Deputy Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission, Maharashtra State, Mumbai somewhere on 29th September, 2010. 5. Petitioners, in para 3 of the writ petition, have raised a question as to whether the petitioners are eligible and entitled to be extended the benefit as in- service candidates of Government of Maharashtra, so as to avail age relaxation, provided under clause 3 of the advertisement published by Respondent No.2. It is undeniable that the appointment of the prosecutors in the State of Maharashtra are 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. governed by the provisions of section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 so far as the Courts of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class are concerned. The appointments of the higher cadre are are regulated by the provisions of section 24 of the said Code. In response to the pleadings and question raised on behalf of the Petitioner affidavit in reply is filed, as aforesaid, on behalf of Respondent No.2. With the assistance of counsel present before the Court we have considered the affidavit in reply. It is not in dispute that S.L.P. was filed in the Honourable Supreme Court and has been disposed of. This fact is also made clear in this affidavit in reply. Issue of age relaxation pertaining to in-service Assistant Public Prosecutor is no more in res-integra. In view of the decision of this Honourable Supreme Court this affidavit has been filed. Both the learned counsel agree that amongst 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. four petitioners, petitioner NO.4 Mr. Sanjay Durgadasrao Deshmukh has been recommended on the issue of age relaxation. On behalf of the respondent No.2, statement is made in this affidavit in reply that in view of the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court, referred in this affidavit in reply, further steps would be taken by the Respondent No.2. Said statement is accepted and taken on record. In this view of the matter, nothing remains in this writ petition to be adjudicated upon. It is made clear that so far as Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are concerned, they were not recommended and their case, therefore, cannot be considered by Respondent No.2. 6. Writ petition is partly allowed. Respondent No.2, shall, in view of affidavit in reply, take further steps expeditiously. Rule is made absolute in above terms. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated. No 5 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. costs. 7. In view of final disposal of the writ petition itself nothing remains in civil application No.12565 of 2008 in Writ Petition No.6175 of 2007. Civil application, therefore, stands disposed of. [SHRIHARI P.DAVARE,J.] [S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] Dated:13/10/2010. ans/5175