N.J. Jamadar, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the Counsels for the parties heard finally.

2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner, who is a Project Affected person, seeks a direction to Respondent no.1, an instrumentality of State, to permit the Petitioner to apply for the post of 'stipendiary trainee (technician)', in response to the advertisement, though the Petitioner does not fulfil the criteria of age requirement, prescribed thereunder.

3. Shorn of superfluities, the background facts leading to this petition can be stated as under:

(a) The agricultural lands of the Petitioner's grandfather were acquired by the State for commissioning Taraporwala Atomic Energy Project. The Petitioner's grandfather was declared a Project Affected Person. The Petitioner came to be nominated for employment as a Project Affected Person. The Petitioner has completed ITI certificate course, for the trade of 'Fitter'.

(b) Pursuant to the advertisement, in the year 2001, the Petitioner had applied but was not selected. In the subsequent recruitment process, of the year 2011, the Petitioner was not allowed to participate. Hence, the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.1808 of 2011. The said writ petition came to be disposed of after recording a statement on behalf of the Respondents that if the Petitioner applies against the future recruitment - advertisement, his claim would be considered on its own merits subject to eligibility and availability of vacancy.

(c) In the year 2017, Respondent no.1 again issued the advertisement, inviting the applications for the post of 'stipendiary trainee (technician)'. However, the maximum age limit of 24 years, as of 25th October, 2017, was prescribed therein. Since the Petitioner is 39 years old, the Petitioner made a representation seeking relaxation in the upper age limit. As the representation did not elicit a positive response, the Petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

4. The Respondents have contested the claim of the Petitioner on the count that as per the extant norms and policy, age relaxation is not applicable to the post of 'stipendiary trainee (Category-II)', for which the Petitioner seeks employment. Therefore, the relief sought by the Petitioner cannot be granted.

5. We have heard Mr. Bakore, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Misra, the learned Counsel for the Respondents, at length.

6. Mr. Bakore advanced a two-fold submission. Firstly, the claim of the Petitioner is required to be considered in the backdrop of the fact that the Petitioner has been deprived of the ownership of the land and the Respondents have not yet honoured their commitment to provide employment to one of the family members of the Project Affected Person. The obligation of the Respondents to provide employment far outweighs the prescription of the requirement of age. Thus, according to Mr. Bakore, the refusal of the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to participate in the recruitment process is wholly unjust and arbitrary as it impinges on the right of the Petitioner to get an employment, under the category of Project Affected Person, and is also in breach of the obligation of the Respondents. Secondly, it was submitted that the Petitioner has demonstrated, by placing reliable material on record, that the Respondents have employed over-aged candidates for the same trade, for which the Petitioner is seeking employment. Thus, the Respondents can't now turn around and shut the door upon the Petitioner on the count that the Petitioner is over-aged.

7. As against this, the learned Counsel for the Respondents countered the aforesaid submissions on behalf of the Petitioner on the premise that the rules and norms which govern the recruitment can't be cast aside. Since the extant norms do not permit