The main legal principle established in the judgment is that statutory provisions, such as the Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995, will prevail over executive orders issued by way of Government Resolutions in pursuance of the Rules framed under the Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution.

Shalini Phansalkar Joshi, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

2. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, heard finally at the stage of admission itself.

3. The Petitioners herein are challenging the Judgment and Order dated 27th September 2016 in Original Application No. 695 of 2016 and connected Original Application No.856 of 2016 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, thereby allowing the said applications and further holding that the upper age-limit for the 'Limited Departmental Competitive Examination, 2016' for selection to the post of “Police Sub-Inspector” has to be in accordance with the State Government Resolution dated 25th April 2016.

4. The first two Writ Petitions, bearing Writ Petition No.6631 of 2017 and Writ Petition No.9242 of 2017, are preferred by the candidates, who have been prejudicially affected on account of the interpretation of the said Government Resolution, (for short, “G.R.”), by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, (hereinafter referred to as “Tribunal”), as they are now loosing their chance for the promotion to the said post of “Police Sub-Inspector”, though they have obtained the qualifying marks; whereas, the third Writ Petition, bearing No.10150 of 2017, is preferred by the State Government itself, being aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal increasing the upper age-limit for the said post.

5. The necessary legal question, therefore, arising for our consideration in all these three Writ Petitions is 'the interpretation and application of the Government Resolution dated 25th April 2016 issued by the State of Maharashtra'.

6. Before we enter into the legal aspects of the question raised for our consideration in these Writ Petitions, it is necessary to mention few facts, which can be stated briefly as under:

7. The Government of Maharashtra, through its Principal Secretary, issued an advertisement on 27th June 2016 to fill up “822” posts of “Police Sub-Inspector” through 'Limited Departmental Competitive Examination' under Rule 3(b) of Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995, (for short, “Rules, 1995”). The said Recruitment Rules have been framed by the State of Maharashtra in exercise of the power conferred by clause (b) of Section 5 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951 (Maharashtra Police Act, 2014), (for short, “Act, 1951”), regulating recruitment to the post of “Police Sub-Inspector” in the Police Force under the Home Department of Government of Maharashtra. As per Rule 3(b) of the said Rules, the upper age-limit for the selection of “Police Sub-Inspector” by way of 'Limited Departmental Competitive Examination' conducted by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission is “35” and “40” years, respectively, for the 'Open Category' and 'Reserved Category' candidates.

8. Respondent Nos.5 to 18 herein, however, relying on the G.R. dated 25th April 2016, issued by the General Administration Department, (for short, “G.A.D.”), increasing the age for competitive examination conducted for the nomination by direct recruitment, upto 38 years and 43 years, for 'open' and 'reserved' category candidates, respectively, sought to appear for the said competitive examination. Under the apprehension that their applications might be rejected by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission, (hereinafter referred to as “MPSC”), on the count that they were age-barred, they approached the Tribunal by filing the two Original Applications, bearing Nos.695 of 2016 and 856 of 2016, seeking permission to appear for the competitive examination.

9. These Original Applications were resisted by Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 therein by filing their affidavits-in-reply, contending, inter-alia, that G.R. dated 25th April, 2016, extending the age-limit upto “38” and “43” years, respectively, for the 'open' and 'reserved' category candidates is not applicable to this examination, as the said G.R. is applicable only for 'Direct Recruitment' and, that too, in other services and not to the services