Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a recruitment process for 189 Dental Surgeon posts initiated by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) in 2015. The original applicants, Dr. Jagdish Bhalerao, Shirish Ingley, and Dr. Bharat Lad, were serving as dental surgeons on contractual basis under the National Health Mission (NHM). They applied in response to the advertisement, but were not called for interview due to MPSC's shortlisting based on higher post-graduate qualification (MDS). Challenging the shortlisting, series of original applications were filed before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT). The MAT, by interim order dated 23rd December 2015, directed MPSC to interview the BDS-qualified applicants. MPSC published a select list on 18th November 2016 and appointed 122 candidates out of 188, leaving 66 vacancies unfilled. The MAT, by final order dated 8th May 2019, held that the shortlisting resulted in en-bloc elimination of BDS candidates and directed MPSC to revise the selection list by including eligible BDS candidates; it also held that experience in private hospitals could be considered. Aggrieved, MPSC and some applicants filed writ petitions before the High Court. By judgment and order dated 20th March 2023, the High Court upheld the validity of shortlisting based on higher qualification but set aside the direction regarding private hospital experience. The High Court directed MPSC to consider the names of original applicants who had been interviewed pursuant to the interim order, for recommendation against the unfilled vacancies prospectively. MPSC, upon consideration, found that the original applicants had crossed the upper age limit as on the cutoff date of 1st November 2015 and therefore did not recommend them. Consequently, the original applicants filed fresh original applications before MAT seeking a direction to MPSC to relax the age limit under Rule 3(b) of the Directorate of Health Service Recruitment Rules, 1990. MAT, by order dated 25th July 2024, directed MPSC to recommend the names of the original applicants by relaxing the age limit within six weeks. MPSC challenged this order through Writ Petition Nos. 1208/2025 and 1205/2025. Dr. Bharat Lad separately filed Writ Petition No. 15021/2025 on the ground that the MAT had not accepted his plea that, being already in government service, the age restriction did not apply to him at all. The High Court heard all parties and reserved the matter on 18th June 2026, pronouncing judgment on 9th July 2026.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Age Relaxation - Directorate of Health Service Recruitment Rules, 1990, Rule 3(b) - Whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's direction to relax upper age limit for contractual dental surgeons was legally sustainable - The MPSC challenged the MAT order on the ground that the advertisement prescribed age limits and relaxation was not permissible; the court examined the applicability of Rule 3(b) and the status of contractual appointees (Paras 1-11).
B) Service Law - Exemption from Age Limit - Directorate of Health Service Recruitment Rules, 1990, Rule 3(b) - Whether a contractual government servant is exempt from age restriction clauses in recruitment advertisements - Dr. Bharat Lad asserted that being in government service, the age limit did not apply; the court considered this plea separately (Paras 1, 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether MAT's direction to MPSC to relax age limit for contractual dental surgeons under Rule 3(b) of the 1990 Rules is legally valid; Whether a contractual government servant is exempt from age limit altogether
Final Decision
Decision not clearly stated
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Shortlisting of candidates based on higher qualification is valid
- Experience in private hospitals is not eligible for government post
- Age relaxation under Rule 3(b) of the Directorate of Health Service Recruitment Rules
- 1990 may be available to contractual employees
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (07) 64
Writ Petition No. 1208 of 2025; Writ Petition No. 1205 of 2025; Writ Petition No. 15021 of 2025
Suman Shyam, Ranjit Sinha Rajabhonsale
Ashutosh M. Kulkarni, Hrutik Chavan, Soham Salunke, Kranti L. C., Kaustubh Gidh, Abhijeet A. Desai, Mohini A. Desai (Rehpade), Vijay Singh, Daksha Punghera, Deepesh R., Shruti D. Vyas, Reena A. Salunkhe
Maharashtra Public Service Commission
Dr. Jagdish Anandrao Bhalerao, Shirish V. Ingley, Dr. Bharat Lad, State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions challenging MAT order directing age relaxation for contractual dental surgeons.
Remedy Sought
MPSC sought to quash the MAT order; Dr. Bharat Lad sought a declaration that the age restriction was not applicable to him.
Filing Reason
MPSC contended that the MAT's direction to relax the age limit was contrary to the advertisement and rules; Dr. Lad contended that being a government servant, the age limit did not apply.
Previous Decisions
MAT order dated 25th July 2024; High Court order dated 20th March 2023; MAT order dated 8th May 2019; MAT interim order dated 23rd December 2015.
Issues
Whether the MAT's direction to MPSC to relax the upper age limit under Rule 3(b) of the Directorate of Health Service Recruitment Rules, 1990, for contractual dental surgeons was legally valid.
Whether Dr. Bharat Lad, as a contractual government servant, was exempt from the age restriction prescribed in the advertisement and the Recruitment Rules.
Submissions/Arguments
MPSC argued that the advertisement prescribed a firm upper age limit and that the MAT had no power to direct relaxation.
The original applicants contended that they were government servants continuously working on contractual basis and were entitled to age relaxation under Rule 3(b).
Dr. Bharat Lad specifically argued that being in government service, the age restriction clause did not apply to him at all.
Ratio Decidendi
Ratio not explicitly mentioned
Judgment Excerpts
directing the MPSC to recommend the names of the Original Applicants for appointment to the post(s) of Dental Surgeon within a period of six weeks by relaxing their age limit as per Rule 3(b) of the Directorate of Health Service Recruitment Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules of 1990”) has been put under challenge.
the shortlisting criteria adopted by the MPSC based on higher qualification was held to be valid. Consequently, the Writ Petitions filed by the MPSC were allowed.
Until the exercise in direction (iii) above is completed, services of the Original applicants, who are already in service, shall not be disturbed.
Procedural History
On 31st July 2015, MPSC issued an advertisement for 189 Dental Surgeon posts. The original applicants, who were contractual dental surgeons under NHM, applied but were not shortlisted because MPSC preferred MDS candidates. They challenged the shortlisting before MAT. On 23rd December 2015, MAT directed MPSC to interview them. MPSC published a select list on 18th November 2016 and appointed 122 candidates, leaving 66 vacancies unfilled. On 8th May 2019, MAT held that shortlisting based on higher qualification led to en-bloc elimination and directed MPSC to include BDS candidates. The High Court, by order dated 20th March 2023, upheld the shortlisting based on higher qualification, allowed MPSC’s writ petitions, but directed MPSC to consider the interviewed original applicants against unfilled vacancies. MPSC found them over-aged as on 1st November 2015 and did not recommend them. Consequently, the original applicants filed OAs before MAT seeking age relaxation under Rule 3(b). MAT, by order dated 25th July 2024, directed MPSC to recommend their names within six weeks by relaxing the age limit. Aggrieved, MPSC filed Writ Petition Nos. 1208/2025 and 1205/2025. Dr. Bharat Lad filed Writ Petition No. 15021/2025 challenging the MAT order to the extent it did not accept his plea of complete exemption from age limit. The High Court heard the petitions and reserved judgment on 18th June 2026, pronouncing on 9th July 2026.
Acts & Sections
- Directorate of Health Service Recruitment Rules, 1990: Rule 3(b)
