Umesh Chandra Pandey And 10 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 36242 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Umesh Chandra Pandey And 10 Others vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 21 December, 2023

Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra

Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:242158-DB
 
Court No. - 46
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 771 of 2023
 

 
Appellant :- Umesh Chandra Pandey And 10 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandan Kumar,M.N. Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
 

Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

This intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 13.10.2023, whereby the challenge laid by the appellants-petitioners to the advertisement issued by the respondent-Commission has been rejected. Learned Single Judge, however, made observations permitting the appellants to approach the State Government for age relaxation and also directed the State Government to decide such issue.

The Petitioners-appellants have essentially challenged the advertisement on the ground that though vacancies were notified from time to time for several years, yet no advertisement was issued on account of which most of the petitioners have become overage by now. It has, therefore, been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the fixation of maximum age to apply in the advertisement is arbitrary and that age relaxation be granted to the petitioners.

It is not in issue that the recruitment to the service is regulated by the provisions of the applicable service rules. Rule 10 of the U.P. Secretariat Personal Assistant Services Rules, 2001 prescribes the minimum and maximum age for applying to the post by way of direct recruitment. Under the amended Rules, the minimum age is 21 years and the maximum age is 40 years. The advertisement is in accord with the Statutory Rules. Learned Single Judge, therefore, has correctly opined that once the advertisement is in accord with the Rules which is, otherwise, not under challenge, there is no justification to interfere with the advertisement issued by the Commission.

Petitioners' contention that on account of non-holding of recruitment for several years, they are entitled to age relaxation has already been directed to be considered by the State Government. This is particularly so, as the power to grant such relaxation vests in the State by virtue of U.P. Public Services (Relaxation of the Age limit for Recruitment) Rules, 1992. In that view of the matter, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the judgment of learned Single Judge and the appeal fails and is dismissed.

Lastly, it is pointed out that the State Government has also rejected the representation for age relaxation vide order dated 20.12.2023. This order has been served to the appellants today in Court. In our view, we are not required to examine the correctness of this decision, as the order of State dated 20.12.2023 would constitute a fresh cause of action and can always be challenged in appropriate proceedings.

Order Date :- 21.12.2023

SP/-