Vinod Singh Thakur vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3656 Chatt

                                         1

                                                                            NAFR
                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                              WPS No. 1563 of 2013
      Vinod Singh Thakur S/o G.S.Thakur Aged About 35 Years R/o Kotra
       Road, Vikas Nagar, Ps Raigarh, Civil And Revenue Distt Raigarh,c G,
       Chhattisgarh
                                                                    ---- Petitioner
                                      Versus
     1. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors. S/o Through Secretary, Deptt Of Home
        Affairs, New Mantralaya, New Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, Chhattisgarh
     2. Director General Of Police Police Headquarter, Civil Line, Civil And
        Revenue Distt Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
     3. Additional Director General Of Police Admn. Police Headquarter, Civil
        Line, Civil And Revenue Distt Raipur, Dist Raipur, Cg, District : Raipur,
        Chhattisgarh
                                                                ---- Respondents

______________________________________________________________ For Petitioner: Shri Vivek Sharma, Advocate For State/Respondents: Ms. Abhyunati Singh, Panel Lawyer.

Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, J Order On Board

13.12.2021

1. The prayer made by the petitioner in the instant Writ Petition is for

issuance of direction to the respondents to consider the case of the

petitioner for appointment on the post of "Sub Inspector" from the

advertisement Annexure-P/3 dated 15/12/2011.

2. The facts of the case in brief is that, the respondent/State had

issued an advertisement on 15/12/2011 for filling up of various posts in

the police department, one such post was that of Sub Inspector and the

total number of vacancies were 563 out of which total 282 posts were for

unreserved category. The petitioner being from the general category

was entitled to apply for one such post. As per the advertisement, the

minimum age prescribed for the post of Sub Inspector initially was as on

01/01/2012 to be 18 years and the maximum age limit was 28 years.

The said advertisement subsequently stood amended vide order dated

27/01/2011 whereby the age of recruitment has been enhanced from 28

years to 31 years. The petitioner was called for appearing in the written

examination in which he qualified and thereafter he was called for

physical test in which also he was found fit and later he was also called

for interview. That the petitioner was also interviewed and according to

the petitioner he was found eligible and suitable for appointment.

However, he was not granted appointment on the ground that the

petitioner had meanwhile crossed the maximum age prescribed as per

the advertisement, which leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition.

3. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that, prior to

issuance of advertisement, the petitioner on an earlier occasion had

been appointed as Constable on 03.11.2001 and later as Platoon

Commander by the respondent and he had worked as a Platoon

Commander from 28/08/2008 to 14/09/2011. Thereafter, on account of

the merit list of selected candidates being rearranged, the petitioner's

appointment was cancelled which was subjected to litigation and finally

the Supreme Court vide its judgment dated 09/07/2013 had restored the

appointment of the petitioner as a Platoon Commander on which post

the petitioner is still working.

4. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that, prior to his

cancellation of appointment on 14/09/2011, he had already put in 9

years 10 months 12 days of service. It was further contended that, as

per sub clause-B of the clause relating to age limit in the advertisement,

the persons who were working or have worked in the past as a

permanent or temporary employee under the State government, the

maximum age limit would be 36 years.

5. According to the counsel for the petitioner, since the maximum

age limit for the persons who have already worked with the State

government was fixed at 36 years and as per the advertisement, the

maximum age being amended to 31 years, the petitioner having put in 9

years 10 months 12 days of service should had been granted the benefit

of the service that he has rendered with the State Government and

accordingly he would had been entitled for issuance of an order of

appointment as a Sub Inspector and thus prayed for issuance of

appropriate order in this regard.

6. The State counsel on contrary drew an attention of this Court to

the advertisement dated 15/12/2011 and the details of application which

the petitioner had filled to show that, on the date when the petitioner had

applied for the post of Sub Inspector, his age as on 01/01/2012 was 35

years 8 months and 16 days. That means he has crossed the 28 years

of maximum age prescribed under the advertisement and he was also

over and above the further amended age of 31 years, amended by the

State government later on. Therefore the petitioner could not have been

considered for appointment and accordingly the respondent have rightly

rejected the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Sub Inspector

and thus prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition.

7. Having heard the contentions put forth on either side and on

perusal of record what is relevant at this juncture to be considered is the

prescribed age limit and the advertisement itself. For ready reference,

the relevant portion of clause-2(A) and 2(B) dealing with age limit is

reproduced herein under:-

^^¼2½ fu/kkZfjr vk;qlhek&

v& lkekU; tkfr ds mEehn~okj dh vk;q fnukad 01-01-2012 dks 18 o"kZ ls de vkSj 28 o"kZ ls vf/kd ugh gksuk pkfg,A vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr ;k vU; fiNMk oxZ ¼xSj dzhehys;j½ ds mEehn~okjksa dks mPprj vk;q lhek esa ikWap o"kZ rd dh NwV iznku dh tkosxhA

c& vH;FkhZ tks NRrhlx< 'kklu ds LFkkbZ ;k vLFkkbZ deZpkjh gS vFkok jg pqds gksa] fdUrq mUgsa 'kkldh; lsok ds v;ksX; u Bgjk;k x;k gks] mPprj vk;qlhek 36 o"kZ gksxhA**

8. In furtherance to the aforesaid clause, it would also be relevant to

take note of the subsequent decision of the State government on

27/01/2012 (Annexure-P/12 enclosed along with the rejoinder). The

relevant portion of the said amended order is also reproduced herein

under:-

la'kks/ku

^^iqfyl eq[;ky; Onkjk fnukad 15-12-2011 dks [email protected]{kd&[email protected] dekUMj p;u ijh{kk o"kZ 2011 dk foKkiu tkjh fd;k x;k FkkA mDr foKkiu esa mEehn~okjksa gsrq of.kZr vf/kdre~ vk;qlhek esa NRrhlx< 'kklu ds vkns'k dzekad&,Q 2&[email protected]&x`[email protected]@2012 fnukad 27-01-2012 Onkjk p;u ijh{kk o"kZ 2011&12 gsrq f'kfFkyhdj.k djrs gq, 03 o"kZ dh NwV iznku dh xbZ gSA vr% foKkiu ds izdkkf'kr vk;q laca/kh izko/kkuksa esa fuEukuqlkj la'kks/ku gksaxsA

lkekU; tkfr ds mEehn~okj dh vk;q fnukad 01-01-2012 dks 18 o"kZ ls de vkSj 31 o"kZ ls vf/kd ugha gksuk pkfg,A vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr ;k vU; fiNMk oxZ ¼xSj&dzhehys;j½ ds mEehn~okjksa dks mPprj vk;q&lhek esa 05 o"kZ dh NwV nh tkosxhA**

9. Thus from the aforesaid amendment, the upper age limit for

applying to the post of Sub Inspector became 31 years.

10. If we read sub-clause-B of clause 2 dealing with age limit it clearly

reflects that, for the persons who are working with the State Government

or have in the past worked with the State Government either as a

permanent employee or as a temporary employee, the upper age limit

would be 36 years. As on 01/11/2012 the petitioner's age was 35 years 8

months and 16 days. If the past service of the petitioner as Constable

and Platoon Commander during the period 03/11/2001 to 14/09/2011 is

taken into consideration i.e. a period of 9 years 10 months and 12 days,

the petitioner would be otherwise entitled for the benefit i.e. prescribed

under sub-clause B of clause 2 where the upper age limit has been

prescribed as 36. On the date when the petitioner had applied, his age

was well below 36 years that was the upper age limit permissible for

either permanent or temporary employee.

11. The document Annexure-R/2 filed with the reply which shows the

reasons for non-consideration of the petitioner seems to be that he was

not a Government employee with which he would be entitled for the

upper age limit of 36 years. The contentions of the State counsel and

the said document may not be sustainable for the reason that, sub-

clause B of clause 2 specifically holds that the said upper age limit

would also be applicable for those persons who have in the past worked

with the State Government as a permanent or temporary employee.

12. The State counsel does not dispute the fact that the petitioner has

infact for a period of 9 years 10 months 12 days worked as a Constable

and later as Platoon Commander with the State Government. The State

counsel also does not dispute the fact that subsequent to the judgment

of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner's appointment has also been

restored subsequently and he still works as a Platoon Commander with

the respondent/State.

13. In view of the fact that sub-clause B of clause 2 specifically also

includes that the persons who in the past have worked with the State

Government would definitely bring the petitioner within the ambit of the

protection/relaxation which is provided under the sub-clause B of clause-

2.

14. The petitioner undisputedly cleared the written examination and

he has also called for interview and it appears that except for the alleged

age barrier, there was no other reason for not being interviewed and

being considered for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector.

15. The reasons assigned in Annexure-R/2 with the return and taking

into account sub-clause B of clause 2 of the advertisement would clearly

reflect that the recruitment committee did not properly appreciate the

condition of sub-clause B of clause 2 which also included those persons

who have worked with the State Government in the past which would

definitely have brought the petitioner within its purview and the

authorities concerned should have considered the case of the petitioner

keeping in view the past service of the petitioner with the State

Government.

16. The decision of non-consideration of the petitioner therefore

appears to be apparently bad in law and contrary to the condition

stipulated in the advertisement itself.

17. The non-consideration of the petitioner therefore is held to be bad

in law and it is directed that subject to the availability of vacancy on the

post of Sub Inspector in the cadre on which the petitioner had applied,

the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and

since he was also subjected to interview and according to the petitioner

he has also been found suitable, the only direction which can be given to

the respondents is to ensure that if he has been found suitable and

eligible for appointment on the post of Inspector, necessary orders be

issued in this regard at the earliest.

18. Let this exercise be completed within a period of 60 days from the

date the copy of the order of this Court is served upon the respondents.

19. The Writ Petition thus stands allowed in terms of the observation

made in the preceding paragraphs and disposed off.

SD/-

(Sanjay S. Agrawal) JUDGE

sunita/Tumane