Chattisgarh High Court
Narendra Singh Darshan vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 February, 2022
1
(Proceeding through Video Conferencing)
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 68 of 2022
Narendra Singh Darshan S/o Shri Bhagwat Prasad Aged About 44 Years
R/o Village Hanfa, Post Sakri (Mungeli Road), District Bilaspur,
Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Skill
Development, Technical Education And Employment, Mantralaya,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh
2. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary,
Atal Nagar, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
__________________________________________________________
For Appellant : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Ms. Astha Shukla, Government Advocate
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate
__________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri N.K. Chandravanshi, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
08.02.2022
Heard Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Ms. Astha Shukla, learned Government Advocate appearing for
respondent No.1 and Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.2.
2. The appellant is a Government employee being Training Officer in
the Office of the Principal, Industrial Training Institute, Bhilai.
3. This appeal is preferred against an order dated 24.01.2022 passed
in Writ Petition (S) No.415 of 2022, whereby, the learned Single Judge
declined to pass an interim order, directing the respondents to accept the
application form of the petitioner for the post of Principal, Grade-I and
Principal, Grade-II, and to allow him to participate in the recruitment
process conducted by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission,
pursuant to the advertisement dated 27.12.2021, published on
29.12.2021.
4. While declining the prayer for interim order, the learned Single
Judge observed as follows :
"Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit
that by the impugned advertisement, (the petitioner who is
in Government service) for which upper age limit has
been prescribed as 38 years, whereas the candidates
who are unemployed are getting 5 years of age relaxation
which is arbitrary and illegal as in the two advertisements
dated 20-1-2016 and 31-3-2021, higher age relaxation
has been provided to all, irrespective of "in job" or "not in
job", as such, it is arbitrary and illegal and therefore while
admitting the petition, the petitioner be allowed to appear
in the examination.
Learned State counsel would bring to the notice of
the Court, the two advertisements, especially the
advertisement dated 20-1-2016 (Annexure P-6) issued by
the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission and filed by
the petitioner himself in which in paragraph 4.2 it has
clearly been provided that for the permanent employee of
the State Government, upper age limit will be 38 years.
Similarly, in the recruitment notification dated 31-3-2021,
in paragraph 6.2, it has clearly been held that for the
permanent employee of the State Government, upper age
limit will be 38 years. As such, the petitioner
has rightly been held ineligible being over aged. Learned
counsel appearing for the Chhattisgarh PSC /respondent
No.2 would submit that in identical writ petition being W.P.
(S) No.31/2022, by order dated 6-1-2022, similarly placed
Government servants have not been granted interim
relief.
The advertisements dated 20-1-2016 and
31-3-2021 which have been filed to demonstrate that
earlier, higher age relaxation has been provided to the
persons in employment is not born-out from the aforesaid
notification in which for the person in service, upper age
limit has been prescribed as 38 years as in the present
case. In W.P.(S) No.31/2022, by order dated 6-1-2022
also, in like situation, interim relief has been denied. In
that view of the matter, the application for interim relief
(I.A.No.1/2022) is rejected. However, four weeks' time is
granted to the respondents to file reply."
5. It is pointed out by Mr. Siddiqui that unemployed candidates of
State of Chhattisgarh are getting 5 years of relaxation in age, which is up
to the age of 40 years, as the upper age limit. In respect of S.C., S.T. and
OBC (non-creamy layer) candidates of the State of Chhattisgarh, the
maximum age limit has been relaxed by 5 years. The contention of the
appellant is that all candidates who are in government job should also be
given the benefit of age relaxation of 5 years.
6. Ms. Astha Shukla submits that in terms of Notification dated
19.04.1973, the maximum age limit has been fixed as 38 years for the
Government employees.
7. On due consideration, we are of the considered opinion that no
interference is called for with the order of the learned Single Judge and
accordingly, the writ appeal fails and is dismissed.
8. However, we hasten to add that we have not expressed any final
opinion on the merits of the contention advanced, as the writ petition is
pending consideration.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (N.K Chandravanshi)
Chief Justice Judge
Chandra
