MAHARASHTRA PUBLIC COMMISSION Vs. DIGAMBAR MURLIDHAR DEVANG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Commission published advertisement inviting application from the interested candidate for filing up the post of Education Officer. Pursuant to the said advertisement respondent No. 1 submitted his application. As per clause 4 of the advertisement, it is stated that the age of the candidate for reservation category should not be more than 45 year's. The respondent No. 1 on the date of submitting application was 47 year's 6 month's and 14 day's. After screening test, inquiry was conducted. The candidature of respondent No. 1 is rejected on the ground that he is over age.

(2.) The respondent No. 1 aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature on the ground of age, filed Original Application bearing No. 775/2011 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad. The tribunal allowed the Original Application and directed the present petitioner to allow the respondent No. 1 to participate in the selection process and to give benefit of age relaxation to the respondent No. 1 as he possesses exceptional qualification. The petitioner has assailed the said judgement in the present writ petition.

(3.) Mr. Kulkarni the learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that, the upper age limit as laid down in clause 4 of the advertisement, is 45 year's for the respondent No. 1 as he belongs to Special Backward Class Category. The petitioner had received about 18,000/applications and when large number of applications are received the petitioner Commission is not required to relax the age. The learned counsel for the said purpose relies on Rule 3 of the Maharashtra Educational Services Class I ( Administrative Branch ) Recruitment Rules, 1978. According to the learned counsel it is only if large number of applications are not received then only the Commission can consider about the age relaxation. According to the learned counsel all the persons who have applied are allowed to appear for the screening test and it is only thereafter the detail scrutiny is conducted of the candidates who are successful in the screening test and in said scrutiny it was found that the respondent No. 1 is over age. The clause of relaxation of age in the advertisement is in a different context. The tribunal has misread the same. According to the learned counsel even otherwise the qualification of the respondent No. 1 cannot be said to be an exceptional qualification. The Court has erroneously relied upon Clause 2 (B) of the Maharashtra Educational Services Class I (Administrative Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1978. The learned counsel relies on the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court in a case of Maharashtra Public Service Commission V/s Kisan Tukaram More and Others,2011 Supp1 BCR 448.