Sangita Kishan Mule v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

1 Sr41 WP12410.2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

WRIT PETITION NO. 12410 OF 2017 Sangita Kishan Mule ... Petitioner

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & Ors.

... Respondents ..........

Mr A. R. Borulkar, Advocate h/f Mr N. L. Choudhari, Advocate for the petitioner Mr A. S. Shinde, AGP for respondent/State .............

CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA & A. M. DHAVALE, JJ.

DATE : 22ND JANUARY, 2018.

ORDER:

.

Heard Mr. Borulkar, learned counsel holding for Mr. Choudhari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the Condition No. 4 in letter dt. 06.01.2017 is ultra virus. So also the condition restricting the age of 40 years is ultra vires and it does not stand to any reason.

2.

For the scheme of 2013-14, the maximum age limit was upto 45 years. The same is now restricted to 40 years, which is erroneous.

2 Sr41 WP12410.2017 3.

There is nothing on record to show that, for the post of Superintendent Block Promoter, the age limit is extended to 45 years. The each scheme has its own terms and conditions. The earlier scheme for 2013-14 was with regard to Asha Swayamsevika. Now the present scheme is for the post of Superintendent Block Promoter. Nothing is brought on record to show that as to why the maximum age has to be 45 years. In absence of any rules and regulations, circulars or document placed on record, the contention of the petitioner cannot be considered.

4.

The writ petition as such is dismissed. No costs. [ A. M. DHAVALE ] [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA ] JUDGE JUDGE Punde