JUDGMENT M.G. Gaikwad, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties.
2. By these petitions, the petitioner who is one and the same person in both these applications, sought review of the judgement and order dated 21/04/2006, a common judgement by which Writ Petitions No. 3893/2005 and 3881/2005 preferred by this petitioner came to be dismissed.
3. According to the petitioner, he belongs to Other Backward Class. All the while he was treated to be from open category and he was eligible to get employment by relaxation of age limit in view of the Government Resolutions dated 12-03-1998 and 27-05-1998, being an Ex-sensus employee as well as part-time employee. However, his petitions came to be dismissed on the ground that he was age-barred. It is contended by the petitioner that there is error apparant on the face of record. Hence, the order needs to be reviewed.
On a notice being issued to the respondents, they appeared and objected these review applications. According to the respondents, as per the Government Resolutions, the petitioner is entitled to relaxation of age by six years nine months and twenty seven days. As per Government Resolution dated 21-02-2004, a maximum relaxation in the age permissible is upto the age of 45 years. Now, the petitioner has crossed that age limit as he is of 45 years and ten months of age. Hence, he cannot be absorbed in the Government service. The review petitions are, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
4. By writ petition No. 3881/2005, the petitioner challenged the order dated 18-12-2002 in Original Application No. 720/2001 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai, Bench at Aurangabad with further direction to absorb the petitioner in the service being an Ex-sensus category employee. In writ petition No. 3893/2005, the petitioner challenged the legality of the order dated 30-03-2005 in Original Applications No. 217/2003 and 392/2004 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Aurangabad and sought directions to the respondents to absorb him relaxing the age limit as per Government Resolution dated 12-03-1998 and 27-05-1998.
5. It is not disputed that the petitioner is an Ex-sensus employee and rendered services to the Government on megrestypend in Sensus Department in Jalgaon district from 04-03-1991 to 31-12-1992. Before that, he had worked as part-time employee during the period from 10-11-1986 to 31-10-1989. He was retrenched from the service as the work of sensus was over. The Government of Maharashtra took a policy decision to absorb Ex-census employees who fulfill the conditions laid down in Government Resolution dated 12-03-1998. As per the said Government Resolution, the employees who had served in Sensus Department for a period of atleast six months and fulfill the age limit and educational criteria, they are supposed to enroll themselves their names with the Employment Exchange. The petitioner being an Ex-sensus employee was called for interview on 11-12-2000, but said process of recruitment was cancelled and then, he preferred Original Application No. 374/2002 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. Said application was disposed of with directions to consider the petitioner's claim. Again, he was called for written test being an Ex-sensus employee as per Government Resolution dated 19-03-1998. He was asked to appear for written test and the petitioner being aggrieved with that action, preferred Original Applications No. 720/2001, 217/2003 and 392/2004. Said Original Applications came to be dismissed. Hence, he had preferred the writ petitions.
6. On behalf of the petitioner, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner admitted that when the petitions came up for hearing, the petitioner was found over-aged. His date of birth is 11-12-1960. Even after giving relaxation, he was found over aged and his petitions came to be dismissed. Now submission has been made that whenever there was a vacancy in the past, that time, the petitioner was within age limit. Hence, he was eligible for appointment, but the appointment was not given to him. He was treated to be a open category candidate though he is from the category of Other Backward Class. This aspect has also been considered in the judgement delivered by us in the writ petitions.
7. The Government Resolution dated 12-03-1998 prescribes relaxation in the upper age limit to the candidates who have worked as part-time employees. The age limit prescribed was 35 years for the candidates belonging to Other Backward Class. Concession to part-time employees was given by relaxing the age by actual services rendered by them. The reserve category candidates upto the age of 38 years were eligible to be considered. This aspect is considered by us in our earlier judgement in paragraph No. 8. The concession available by Government Resolution dated 12-03-1998 was a concession of five years plus the period of actual services rendered by such candidate. The petitioner was entitled to relaxation of six years nine months and twenty seven days. Giving weightage of this relaxation also, the petitioner was found overaged as he was found 46 years of age. Now an attempt is made to show that he is entitled to relaxation in two categories i.e. being an Ex-sensus employee as well as part-time employee, but no resolution is pointed out which permits double benefit i.e. relaxation in age giving weightage of the period in both categories. Hence, the maximum relaxation to which the petitioner entitled was the relaxation of six years nine months and twenty seven days. Even giving weightage of this period, he was found age-barred. There is no resolution which would give weightage by adding the relaxation of another category in this relaxation of six years nine months and twenty seven days. After considering these aspects as he was found age-barred giving weightage also, his both writ petitions came to be dismissed. In paragraph No. 12 of our earlier judgement, we have observed that even after giving concession as contained in both Government Resolutions dated 12-03-1998 and 27-05-1998, the petitioner is not entitled to further relaxation in age and he was found age-barred. Hence, there is no error as such, which requires review of our order.
8. On behalf of the petitioner, submission is made that by way of equity, the order be reviewed and directions be issued to the respondents to give appointment relaxing the age of the petitioner because he was within age limit when the Government Resolutions came to be issued. If his case would have been considered in the year 2000 or subsequent thereto, that time, he was within age, but the appointment was not given to him at that time. Hence, this can be treated to be the ground to relax the upper age limit. This aspect is already considered by us while dismissing the writ petitions. We have specifically observed that the petitioner's case was not found to be a case of non-consideration. He himself appeared for written test and he was not found eligible. Because of his participation in that process and after he was found ineligible, he cannot challenge that process. In view of these facts, we have refused to grant any relief to him on the ground of equity. Now, admittedly, he is age-barred.
9. In view of the above referred facts and the provisions in the Government Resolutions, no error apparant is found so as to review our order passed in the writ petitions. Thus, both review applications are found to be without any merit. We are, therefore, not inclined to review or modify our order passed in writ petitions. Both the review petitions being found without any merit need to be dismissed.
10. In the result, both civil (review) applications are dismissed.