JUDGMENT : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. In this Writ Petition two questions fall for determination. First one is whether the petitioner an employee on contract basis since 20-10-2010 can be treated as employee previously in Zilla Parishad service so as to enable him to claim extended age of 45 years while applying for the recruitment. Second question is whether the application submitted for the employment by the petitioner was in accordance with the stipulation in Clause 11 of the recruitment advertisement dated 31-10-2015. 2. The last date for submission of application was 13-11-2015 and the petitioner applied on 06-11-2015. Insofar as the provision for age is concerned, it is contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner though belonging to Other Backward Class category has applied in open category and therefore the age of recruitment for the petitioner is 33 years and if he is above 33 years his application cannot be looked into. The learned Advocate for the petitioner, however, has relied upon Clause 7.2.g of the advertisement to demonstrate that if such person is already in the employment of the Zilla Parishad or the State Government, he should be below 45 years of age on the last date stipulated for making of an application i.e. on 13-11-2015. In the present matter, the petitioner admittedly was below 39 years of age on the said date. 3. Learned Advocate Shri Naik for the petitioner further submits that the experience certificate dated 26-10-2015 showing that the petitioner has been working from 20-10-2010 with Zilla Parishad on contract basis in Water Supply Department is filed along with that application. No objection given by the Competent Authority (Executive Engineer) of the Water Supply Department on 15-10-2015 has also been supplied. He invites our attention to the assertion in Writ Petition to demonstrate that all these documents form part of the application. Learned Advocate for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union Public Service Commission v. Dr. Jamuna Kurup & Ors. reported at AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2463, particularly paragraph 13 therein to submit that the Hon’ble Apex Court has found that no distinction can be made in regular employee or temporary employee or employee on contract basis. He, therefore, submits that the rejection of application on the ground that the petitioner is over 38 years of age is erroneous. 4. reported at AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2463, particularly paragraph 13 therein to submit that the Hon’ble Apex Court has found that no distinction can be made in regular employee or temporary employee or employee on contract basis. He, therefore, submits that the rejection of application on the ground that the petitioner is over 38 years of age is erroneous. 4. Learned Advocate Shri Khobragade appearing for respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 and learned Advocate Shri Tiwari appearing for respondent no.8 opposed the petition. 5. The learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for respondent no.2 submits that his instructions are still awaited. 6. According to learned Advocate Shri Khobragade for respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 and learned Advocate Shri Tiwari for respondent no.8, Clause 7.2.g of the advertisement envisaged only a permanent employee already in employment of the Zilla Parishad or the State Government. The petitioner who is working on contract basis therefore is not covered thereunder. They also invite our attention to the fact that the petitioner has not applied through proper channel and as he has applied in open category, his age should have been below 33 years. The judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court mentioned supra is sought to be distinguished by contending that entirely different facts have been looked into there. 7. With the assistance of all respective Counsel, we have perused the records. Learned Advocate Shri Khobragade for respondent nos. 1, 3 and 4 has also invited our attention to the provisions of the Maharashtra Zilla Parishads (Contract Service) Rules, 1963 [for short, “the Rules, 1963”]. The said Rules apply to persons appointed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Parishad under a contract for special purposes. As per Rule 2(b) of the Rules, 1963” employee under contract” means a person appointed by, the Chief Executive Officer under contract and includes a person appointed on contingency paid establishment, daily rated establishment or work-charged establishment; and a part-time employee. In sub-rule(b1) “part-time employee” means a person working under the control of a Zilla Parishad, who is not governed by the normal working hours applicable to regular employees. As per sub-rule (c) “regular employee” means a person working under the control of a Zilla Parishad (no being an employee under contract). As per Rule 3 sub-rule (4) of the Rules, 1963, the qualifications in respect of age, education and experience, etc. As per sub-rule (c) “regular employee” means a person working under the control of a Zilla Parishad (no being an employee under contract). As per Rule 3 sub-rule (4) of the Rules, 1963, the qualifications in respect of age, education and experience, etc. for appointment to the posts on Work-Charged Establishments, shall be the same as are applicable to similar posts on regular establishment. 8. Perusal of judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court mentioned supra, shows that therein the advertisement dated 13-03-2004 published by the UPSC for 45 posts of ‘Ayurvedic Vaids’ was looked into. It prescribed that age should not exceed 35 years. The UPSC advertisement clearly specified that the age limit of 35 years was relaxable for employees of Municipal Corporation of Delhi, upto five years. The Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph 13 has considered this aspect and found that the respondents before it who were appointed on contract basis initially for a period of six months & continued thereafter from time to time for further periods of six months each, were therefore, employees of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, and consequently, entitled to the benefit of age relaxation. It held that the fact that the scope of term ‘employees of Municipal Corporation of Delhi’ is no way restricted, makes it clear that the intention was to include all employees including contractual employees. 9. Any employer has option to engage the employees on daily-wages, on temporary basis or then permanently. The provisions to which our attention has been invited do not show that the contractual employees have not been treated as Zilla Parishad employees. On the contrary, it appears that under the said Rules of 1963, the Zilla Parishad has to regulate their employment. The advertisement speaks of employees in service of Zilla Parishad or in service of Government, and if such employee is already in service of Zilla Parishad or State Government, he has to be below 45 years of age on the last date prescribed for submission of application. The petitioner fulfills this requirement. 10. The question whether the petitioner belongs to Other Backward Category or not is not relevant. As once it is held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Clause 7.2.g the upper age limit in his case is 45 years & that age limit does not depend upon his caste. 11. The petitioner fulfills this requirement. 10. The question whether the petitioner belongs to Other Backward Category or not is not relevant. As once it is held that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of Clause 7.2.g the upper age limit in his case is 45 years & that age limit does not depend upon his caste. 11. The other question is whether the petitioner has applied as per Condition No.11 of the advertisement. The said condition requires Government, Semi Government employees to apply with permission of Competent Authority and to produce the original of such permission at the time of verification of documents. If this condition is not fulfilled, resultant consequence is refusal to issue appointment order of a candidate who is selected on the strength of such deficient application. The petitioner before this Court has in paragraph 5 of the petition specifically stated that he has submitted an application along with the documents which are annexed collectively and marked as Annexure ”C” with the Writ Petition. “No objection” given by the Executive Engineer on 15-10-2015 is thus claimed to be enclosed along with the application to the employment. By said “no objection” on the subject of grant of permission to apply for recruitment, the petitioner has been given permission to apply for the recruitment in year 20-16-2017 and to appear for examinations, if any. This assertion & annexure has not been denied by any of the respondents. Respondent nos.1, 3 and 4 has in paragraph 6 stated that perusal of documents filed by the petitioner itself shows that he is not a State Government/ Zilla Parishad employee and therefore had not applied through proper channel. On the basis of this and perusal of the papers submitted by the petitioner, the further contention is therefore that the petitioner is not entitled to claim age relaxation. Respondent no.8 has filed reply affidavit and in paragraph 7 after mentioning the condition of age it is pleaded that from perusal of said condition it is apparent that the relaxation is provided to departmental candidates who applied through the department and not to candidates like the petitioner who have worked on the contract basis for few months. Thus, there is no express assertion that the petitioner did not apply as contemplated by Clause 11 of the advertisement. Thus, there is no express assertion that the petitioner did not apply as contemplated by Clause 11 of the advertisement. Clause 11 of the advertisement as mentioned supra only contemplates submission of application with previous permission of the Competent Authority. Such permission (in original) is required to be produced for verification at the time of scrutiny of documents. It appears that even the copy of such permission is not required to be enclosed along with the application. It’s later part laying down consequence of not producing original permission for scrutiny reveals that the application is to be processed further and if said employee is selected, his documents are scrutinized. If at that time, said permission is not produced, he cannot be issued appointment order. 12. In this case, as we find that the petitioner has submitted necessary authorization/permission of Competent Authority and upper age limit in this case is 45 years, we hold that his candidature needs to be looked into on merits by respondent nos.2, 3 and 4. Therefore, impugned communication dated 15-02-2016 is quashed and set aside. 13. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs.