Gujarat High Court
Chauhan Dineshbhai Magabhai vs State Of Gujarat on 29 June, 2021
Bench: Bhargav D. Karia
C/SCA/17418/2017 ORDER DATED: 29/06/2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17418 of 2017
==========================================================
CHAUHAN DINESHBHAI MAGABHAI & 3 other(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 2 other(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR MANOJ SHRIMALI(2331) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4
MR KURVEN DESAI, AGP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR SP HASURKAR(345) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA
Date : 29/06/2021
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned advocate Mr.Manoj Shrimali for the
petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader
Mr.Kurven Desai for the respondent-State and learned
advocate Mr.S.P.Hasurkar for the respondent Nos.2 and
3 through video conference.
1. By this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed
that the petitioners ought to have been permitted to
appear in the examination of Pole Climbing conducted
by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 on 24th March, 2017 as
per letter dated 07.03.2017.
2. The case of the petitioners is that the date of
birth of the petitioner No.1 is 15.08.1976 and he
belongs to Schedule Caste. The petitioner No.1 passed
S.S.C. Examination in March, 1993 and obtained
C/SCA/17418/2017 ORDER DATED: 29/06/2021
National Trade Certificate for the training from
August, 1997 to July, 1999. The petitioner No.1 was
issued Wireman's Certificate dated 10.09.1999 and
petitioner No.1 completed apprenticeship course in
the trade of Lineman held in May, 2007. Similarly,
the date of birth of the petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4
also is of year 1976. Therefore, admittedly the
petitioners have crossed the age of 40 years if they
belongs to reserved category and 35 years if they
belongs to the unreserved category on 23rd March,
2017.
3. The important stipulation in the letter dated
07.03.2017 which is challenged in this petition is
that the age of the applicant should not be more than
35 years in unreserved category and 40 years in
reserved category as on 23rd March, 2017 and if it is
so, the name of such applicant would be deleted
automatically from the selection process. Admittedly,
the petitioner Nos.1 to 3 crossed the age limit of 40
years as they belong to reserved category and
petitioner No.4 crossed the age limit of 35 years as
he belongs to unreserved category. Thus, the
petitioners were not eligible to appear in the
examination.
4. Learned advocate Mr.Shrimali relied upon the
decision of the Division Bench of this Court in case
of Katara Somabhai Chandubhai and Others Vs. Madhya
Gujarat Vij Company Ltd Through Chairman dated 14th
February, 2014 and submitted that according to the
C/SCA/17418/2017 ORDER DATED: 29/06/2021
said decision the petitioners are eligible to appear
in the examination. He relied upon the paragraph
N0.33(1) of the said judgment which reads as under :
"33. In the result, all the proceedings are disposed of with
the following directions:
(1) All those candidates whose names were included in the data
bank upon successful completion of the apprenticeship training
period and who had never appeared in trade test and therefore
not offered appointment shall be given one chance for
appearing in the trade test and if they pass the trade test,
the concerned authorities shall issue necessary certificate of
completion of apprentice training."
5. On perusal of the aforesaid judgment it appears
that the question of age limit was not before this
Court and the only controversy which was decided by
this Court pertained to the selection for
apprenticeship training to be imparted by the Gujarat
Electricity Board. In that context the aforesaid
direction was issued by this Court. Therefore,
reliance placed by the learned advocate Mr.Shrimali
on the direction contained in paragraph No.33(1) of
the said judgment is not applicable in the facts of
the case as it has nothing to do with the age limit
criteria which is made applicable to the petitioners.
6. Learned advocate Mr.Hasurkar relied upon the
averments made in the affidavit-in-reply and
submitted that the petitioner No.1-Chauhan Dineshbhai
Magabhai belongs to Schedule Caste category and has
crossed the age of 40 years on 24 th March, 2017,
petitioner No.2-Makwana Rameshkumar Mafatlal belongs
to Schedule Castes category and has crossed the age
C/SCA/17418/2017 ORDER DATED: 29/06/2021
of 40 years on 24th March, 2017 similarly, petitioner
No.3-Gameti Lalitkumar Babubhai belongs to Schedule
Tribes category and has crossed the age of 40 years
on 24th March, 2017 and petitioner No.4-Patel
Jitendrakumar Natvarlal belongs to General category
and has crossed the age of 35 years on 24 th March,
2017.
7. Learned advocate Mr.Hasurkar also relied upon
the copy of the General Standing Order No.7 dated
04.10.1960 prescribing the requisite age limit for
various categories. It is also contended in the
affidavit that no similarly situated person has been
appointed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3 who have
crossed the age limit as prescribed in the General
Standing Order.
8. In view of the above facts and circumstances
when the petitioners have crossed the prescribed age
limit for appointment and they were aware about such
fact that they are not eligible to appear in the
examination as they have crossed the age limit as
stated in the letter date 07.03.2017, the grievance
raised by the petitioners in this petition is without
any basis and accordingly, the petition being devoid
of any merit, is summarily dismissed. Notice is
discharged. No order as to costs.
(BHARGAV D. KARIA, J)
PALAK
