Anil Kumar Rao vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 1471 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Anil Kumar Rao vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 2 January, 2025

Author: Rakesh Thapliyal

Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                    NAINITAL

             Writ Petition (SS) No. 2398 of 2024


Anil Kumar Rao                                       ...Petitioner

                                Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another                  ...Respondents



Presence:
1.   Mrs. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2.   Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsel and Mr.
Bhupendra Koranga, learned Brief Holder for the State.
3.   Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.



Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. (Oral)

The short issue involved in this petition is what would be the criteria for recruitment date of determination of age. In this case the advertisement was issued on 13.12.2024, therefore, admittedly this advertisement falls in the recruitment year of 2024-25. Under the Rules the year of recruitment is defined as the period of 12 months commencing from the first day of July of Calendar year. Here in the advertisement itself as per clause-4 the age has to be determined on the first day of the recruitment year i.e. 01.07.2024.

2. The petitioner's date of birth is 01.07.1982 and on computation of age of the petitioner as on 01.07.2024 it comes to 42 years, which is the maximum age limit for a candidate for participating in the selection process.

3. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Pankaj Miglani submits that here since the date of birth of the petitioner is 01.07.1982, therefore he is completing 42 years on 30.06.2024,

therefore, he as on 01.07.2024, is 42 years 1 day, therefore, is not eligible to apply. In reference to this, learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Pankaj Miglani placed reliance on two judgments, one is the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court State of U.P. and Others vs. Smt. Priyanka decided on 09.02.2023 in which particularly he has placed reliance in paragraph-5 of the said judgment, which is being reproduced hereinbelow:

"5. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at length.

At the outset, it is required to be noted that the date of birth of the deceased was 1.7.1951. He was appointed as a Lecturer on 2.7.2001. He would have completed 60 years of his age on 30.06.2011. As per Government Order dated 16.09.2009, he would have exercised his option to retire at the age of 60 years on or before 1.7.2010, However, before he could exercise the option, unfortunately he died. In fact, he had died even prior to the Government order. He had died on 11.08.2009 whereas the Government order is dated 16.9.2009. Therefore, there was no chance for him to exercise any option at all. There is hence no merit in this appeal.

The High Court has rightly observed that the respondent would be entitled to the benefit of the Government Order dated 16.9.2009 and would be entitled to the benefit of death-cum-retirement gratuity being the heirs of the deceased employee.

At this stage, it is required to be noted that it is not the case on behalf of the appellants that if the deceased employee would have exercised the option, even then he would not have been entitled to the benefit of death-cum-retirement gratuity under the scheme. The death- cum-retirement gratuity is the benevolent scheme and the same is extended to the respondent being heirs/dependent of the deceased employee by the learned Single Judge, confirmed by the Division Bench. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference of this Court is called for."

4. The another judgment, which has been relied by the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Pankaj Miglani is in the case of Someswar Brahma vs. The State of Assam and Ors. 'Gauhati High Court' decided on 14.02.2023 and particularly he has placed reliance in paragraph-9 of this judgment, which is also being reproduced hereinasbelow:

"9. However, it is also relevant to take note of that from a perusal of the HSLC Certificate which has been enclosed to the writ petition as Annexure-10, it is apparent that the age of the

petitioner is 21 years 2 months 0 days as on 01.03.1976. As per the calculation thereof, the date of birth of the petitioner would be 01.01.1955 and accordingly, the petitioner ought to have retired on 30.01.2015. Therefore, the pension of the petitioner has to be calculated by taking that his date of birth is 01.01.1955 and his date of retirement is 30.01.2015."

5. Apart from this, he has also placed before this court the details of former Hon'ble Judges of this court, who retired after completion of 62 years of age. All these are also placed on record.

6. Learned Standing Counsel Mr. Pradeep Hairiya on previous date argued that the recruiting body is on a wrong footing and for all the purposes for the recruitment the age has to be determined on the first day of the recruitment year and since the advertisement itself falls in recruitment year of 2024-25 therefore age has to be determined as on 01.07.2024 and as on 01.07.2024 petitioner completed 42 years of age and therefore he is eligible to apply.

7. Apart from this, he also gives reference of Uttarakhand Recruitment to Services (Age Limit) Rules, 2014 and particularly he has referred Rule 5 of the Uttarakhand Recruitment to Services (Age Limit) Rules, 2014, which is being quoted hereunder:

"5. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any service Rule for such services and posts, whether within or outside the purview of the Public Service Commission, a candidate must have attained the minimum age and must not have attained the maximum age, as prescribed from time to time on the first day of July of the calendar year in which vacancies for direct recruitment are advertised by the Public Service Commission or any other recruiting authority, or as the case may be, such vacancies are intimated to the Employment Exchange."

8. By giving reference of Rule 5 of the said Rules learned Standing Counsel Mr. Pradeep Hairiya submits that the age limit has to be determined only on the first day of the recruitment year for the purposes of recruitment, but learned

counsel for the respondent Mr. Pankaj Miglani is adamant for his argument and submits that learned Standing Counsel Mr. Pradeep Hairiya is wrong and for the recruitment the age should not be determined as on 01.07.2024. The argument advanced by the learned counsel Mr. Pankaj Miglani is outrightly rejected, simply for the reason that the advertisement was issued on 13.12.2024 therefore this advertisement falls in the recruitment year 2024-25, therefore for all purposes in this recruitment the age has to be determined on 01.07.2024 and since the petitioner has completed 42 years as on 01.07.2024, therefore, he is eligible to apply.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the only mode for accepting the application is through online and the software of the commission is not accepting the application of the petitioner since the petitioner's age is being determined as on 30.06.2024 not on 01.07.2024.

10. On 31.12.2024 learned Standing Counsel for Kumaon University Mrs. Mamta Bisht was also requested to assist this court to get a report from some experts from the University. Pursuant to such request the Registrar of the University by a written instruction to learned counsel Mrs. Mamta Bisht dated 02.01.2025 placed before this court the report of the expert, who is the Professor of Maths and as per this expert's report the petitioner completed 42 years as on 01.07.2024. These expert's report is placed on record.

11. In such an eventuality, since the petitioner has completed 42 years as on 01.07.2024, therefore, the recruiting body is directed to update their software forthwith so that the petitioner and other candidates may apply if they are within the age limit as required, which has to be determined as on

01.07.2024. Since, the order is dictated in open court the respondents are directed to comply the directions forthwith.

12. Since 04.01.2024 is the last date and there may be large number of candidates, who could not apply only because of the explanation note added in clause-4 of the advertisement though there was no any justification on the part of the recruiting body to add explanatory note in clause-4 of the advertisement, which pertains to the determination of age, accordingly, the respondent-commission is directed to immediately update its software and extend the date for two weeks more by ignoring the explanatory note, which has been added in clause-4 of the advertisement. All these directions shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition.

13. Learned counsel for the respondents are granted four weeks' time to file counter affidavit.

14. Thereafter, two weeks are granted to the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.

15. List this matter in the last week of March, 2025.

.

(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.) 02.01.2025 PR