Satyendra Kumar Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2021 Latest Caselaw 353 Chatt

                                 1
                                                       WA No. 142 of 2021


                                                                NAFR

       HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                       WA No. 142 of 2021

    Satyendra Kumar Singh S/o Shri. Nem Singh Aged About 44
     Years R/o Qtr, No. 168, Behind Nirmala School, Kosabadi,
     District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.

                                                      ---- Appellant

                             Versus

  1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of
     School Education, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur,
     District- Raipur, Chhatttisgarh..

  2. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Raipur, Through
     The Secretary, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector- 19, Atal
     Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh..

  3. Joint Director Education Office, Ghoda Dana School, Tarbahar,
     Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

                                                  ---- Respondents



For Appellant          :-    Ms. Juhi Jaiswal, Advocate
For Respondent-State   :-    Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Dy.A.G.
For Respondent No.2    :-    Dr. Saurabh Pandey, Advocate


         Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag. CJ
            Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, J.

Judgment On Board

By

Prashant Kumar Mishra, Ag. CJ

16/06/2021

1. Heard.

2. Petitioner's writ petition challenging his disqualification for

recruitment for the post of Teacher (Physical Education), on the

WA No. 142 of 2021

ground of age bar, has been dismissed by learned Single

Judge.

3. The maximum age limit prescribed for the subject post was 35

years to be calculated as on 01.01.2019. Admittedly, on the

said date, appellant was aged 43 years 6 months and 2 days.

Appellant pressed into service provision of clause 6 of the

circular dated 30.1.2019 issued by the General Administration

Department (GAD), Government of Chhattisgarh, which

provides for relaxation for the period of his service as Army

man, subject, however, to the fact that the reduction in age to

the maximum age limit shall not exceed 3 years. In addition,

appellant also claims benefit of age relaxation of 5 years for

being domicile of State of Chhattisgarh.

4. While dismissing the writ petition, learned Single Judge has

observed thus in paragraph 8 :-

"8.Clause-1 of the advertisement specifically mentions the upper age limit to be 35 years. From the said maximum upper age limit of 35 if the period of service rendered by the petitioner with the armed forces which is 2 years is added, it would only take the age of the petitioner to 37. Further if we add the relaxation of 5 years for being the domicile of Chhattisgarh, it would take the age of the petitioner to 37+5=42. Even then the petitioner would be age barred as his age was more than 43 years and 6 months."

5. Challenging the impugned order, Ms. Juhi Jaiswal, learned

counsel for the appellant would submit that clause 6 of the

GAD circular dated 30.1.2019 has not been properly applied by

WA No. 142 of 2021

learned Single Judge. According to learned counsel, his age is

required to be reduced by 5 years for being domicile of

Chhattisgarh and thereafter by another 2 years 3 months and

15 days for serving as an Ex-Army man during the said period.

In substance, it is argued that appellant's age has to be

reduced by 5 years + 2 years 3 months and 15 days,

therefore, once appellant's actual age i.e., 43 years 6 months

and 2 days is reduced by the above said period, he would be

36 years 3 months and 13 days. It is then argued that as per

clause 6 of the GAD circular, appellant would again be entitled

for relaxation equal to the period of his service as an Army-man

and thus appellant would be within the maximum age limit.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at length, we

are not convinced with the submission made. Clause 6 of the

GAD circular dated 30.1.2019 provides maximum relaxation of

3 years from upper age limit. This clause has to be read as a

whole and not by breaking it into separate parts. The first part

provides for relaxation and the second part restricts the

maximum relaxation up-to 3 years. It cannot be said that the

first part provides for relaxation of entire service rendered as an

Ex-Army man and the second part provides for further

reduction of maximum age by 3 years. Thus, the clear

interpretation of the clause 6 is that the maximum relaxation to

an Ex-Army man, on the said count, cannot be of more than 3

years.

7. In our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly

WA No. 142 of 2021

calculated the age relaxation to which the appellant is entitled

and thereafter it is rightly held that the appellant is still barred

by his age as he was more than 43 years 6 months as on

01.01.2019.

8. In view of the above, no case for interference in the order

passed by the learned Single Judge is made out. Accordingly,

the writ appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

                    SD/-                               SD/-
          (Prashant Kumar Mishra)               (Parth Prateem Sahu)
            Acting Chief Justice                      Judge




Ayushi