M.S. Sonak, J.

By order dated 18th June, 2018, the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice ordered the constitution of the Full Bench to resolve the conflicting views expressed by the two Hon'ble Division Benches of this Court in cases of V.D. Arati Prabhakar Dubewar V/s. Ayurveda Seva Samiti Sanchalit D.M.M. Ayurved Mahavidyalaya Yavatmal, Through Its Principal and Others, 2011(2) Mh.L.J. (Dubewar) and in The Secretary, Maharashtra Public Service Commission V/s. Manish Ramchandra Patil and Another, (Writ Petition No. 1587 of 2015) decided on 12th June, 2015 (Patil). Accordingly we proceed to answer the reference.

MAIN ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE REFERENCE :

2. In “Dubewar” (supra), the Division Bench comprising Shri S.A. Bobde, J. (as his Lordship then was) and Shri A.B. Choudhari, J. was concerned with a Petitioner who had applied for selection to the post of Reader. The maximum age limit prescribed for selection was 35 years as on the last date for receipt of applications. The Petitioner Dubewar was 45 years 8 months and 2 days old as on the last date. However, she contended that she was entitled to cumulative age relaxation by 13 years. She relied on certain rules/executive instructions which provided 10 years age relaxation in favour of physically challenged applicants and 3 years age relaxation in favour of reserved category applicants. In the absence of any indication in the rules/executive instructions as to whether age relaxation should be construed on cumulative basis as contended by Petitioner Dubewar, the Division Bench held that age relaxation will have to be construed on a non cumulative basis. Therefore, the Petitioner Dubewar was held entitled to age relaxation by maximum 10 years and not 13 years as contended by her.

3. The reasoning of the Division Bench in Dubewar (supra) is reflected in paragraph 7, which reads thus :

7. It is, thus, clear that the Central Council of Indian Medicines itself states that the provisions regarding reservation and relaxation will have to be made by the concerned Government and the Central Council has not provided with any regulation on that aspect i.e. obviously because the policy of reservation and relaxation is to be implemented by the respective State Government and not by the Central Councils or the Apex bodies. As already stated, the Government of Maharashtra, in so far as handicapped categories are concerned, clearly provided relaxation by 10 years i.e. up to 45 years as against earlier upper age limit of 35 years by taking the policy decision. In other words, the Government of Maharashtra has provided upper age limit of relaxation to the open category candidates by three years, reserved category candidates by five years and to the handicapped category candidates by ten years. The submission that relaxation to the open category candidates of three years that was granted by the Government of Maharashtra should in addition be read to the relaxation of ten years for handicapped category candidates would mean that the petitioner wants benefit of both relaxation for general category candidates and relaxation for disabled category candidates. We do not think such a hotchpotch proposed to be made by the petitioner can be allowed. The categories of the candidates are different and we do not see any discrimination in such matters when the categories are clearly distinct and separate. The decision in the case of Aurangabad Bench has no application for the simple reason that the petitioner/candidate in the category was not a handicapped category candidate. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the present writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. (Emphasis supplied)

4. In Patil (supra), the Division Bench comprising Shri B.R. Gavai, J. and Smt. Indira K. Jain, J. was concerned with an applicant (Patil) who had applied for selection to a post for which the maximum age limit prescribed was 35 years as on the last date for receipt of applicat