The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for age relaxation for in-service candidates competing for appointment by nomination, and the suggestion that the State Government should consider removing the upper age limit for in-service candidates of all departments in the State Government service.

N.V. DABHOLKAR, J. :- By this writ petition, petitioner challenges the judgment and order passed by Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad on 5-11-2004 (Exh.Y). By the impugned judgment, learned Members of MAT were pleased to dismiss Original Application Nos. 937/2004;

946/2004 and 964/2004. Present petitioner was a petitioner in Original Application No. 937/2004. By seeking quashment of the impugned judgment, petitioner also seeks directions to respondent Nos. 1 to 4 to provide relaxation of upper age limit for in-service candidates, during the process of filling up the posts, which were likely to be advertised on 24-10-2007 (writ petition is filed on -20-10-2007) i.e. Maharashtra Engineering Services Examination 2007 (refer schedule of examinations published by MPSC on 16-7-2007 - Exhibit X).

In fact, petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 7356/2004 challenging this very judgment, by which prayer for relaxation of upper age limit for in-service candidates was turned down by relying upon the provisions of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Provision of Upper Age Limit for Recruitment by Nomination) Rules, 1986. During the pendency of said writ petition, a statement was made on behalf of respondents that the issue of relaxation of upper age limit was under consideration by the Government and, therefore, this Court was not inclined to entertain the matter. The said writ petition came to be disposed of accordingly by order dated 15-12-2004 (Exhibit Z).

Eventually, although learned Government Pleader has opposed the writ petition tooth and nail, contentions such as laches and res judicata were not raised in all fairness and, therefore, the events regarding previous writ petition have not remained of any significance.

2. Petitioner, on completion of Diploma in Civil Engineering (DCE) in the year 1983, joined service as Junior Engineer under respondent No. 2 i.e. Irrigation Department, with effect from 2-11-1983. He was promoted to the post of sectional Engineer with effect from 1-4-1989. While in service, he acquired' qualification of Associate Membership of Institute of Engineers (AMIE) in 1994, which is regarded as equivalent to Bachelor in Engineering. Consequently, petitioner was elevated from the post of sectional Engineer to that of Assistant Engineer Grade II (for short AE-II). Lastly, petitioner was promoted to the post of Sub Divisional Engineer by an order dated 24-3-2003 and at present he is working in that capacity.

Petitioner has given hierarchy in the cadre of engineering services in Irrigation and Public Works Department as under:

Secretary

Chief Engineer

Superintending Engineer

Executive Engineer

Deputy Engineer

(This is said to be otherwise called Assistant Engineer Grade-lor AE-I)

AE-II/sectional Engineer Junior Engineer.

(In fact, if the hierarchy given in para 10 of the petition is taken into consideration, AE-II and sectional Engineer do not seem to be unequal posts although petitioner claims that from the post of sectional Engineer, he was promoted as AE-II in the year 1994. In the hierarchy itself, petitioner has not shown his present post i.e. Sub Divisional Engineer.)

For the post of Deputy Engineer, appointments are by three sources; 34% by nomination through MPSC, 33% from amongst in-service engineering, graduates i.e. AE-II and 33% from in-service diploma holder civil engineers commonly known as sectional Engineers.

In paras 11 to 20, petitioner has given a detailed account of the cadre, 800 to 850 posts being 34% of the cadre of Deputy Engineers, available for being filled in by nominations through MPSC and how there is backlog in that region, either due to rare occasions of recruitment and due to recruitment of less number of candidates than actual vacancies whenever such process was carried out. For the purpose of adjudication of present writ petition, these details are not necessary, but petitioner seems to have added those in order to demonstrate that due to lack of vigilance in fill