Chattisgarh High Court
Sant Kumar Banjare vs C.G. Public Service Comm. And Ors. 55 ... on 1 August, 2018
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 2174 of 2011
Sant Kumar Banjare, S/o. Shri S.K. Banjare, Aged about 44 years, R/o.
PWD-84, Kotwali Sector-6, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, through: its Secretary,
Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, General Administration
Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
3. Director, Higher Education Department, Nagarjun P.G. College of
Science Premises, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
----Respondents
WPS No. 1725 of 2012 Ramnarayan Jangde, S/o. Shri Manohar Jangde, Aged about 45 years, R/o. Village Mehndi, Post Bundela Via Kharod, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission, through: its Chairman, Shankar Nagar Road, Bhagat Singh Square, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
----Respondents WPS No. 1929 of 2012 Dr. Savita Chandrakar, Aged about 48 years, D/o. Late Shri Manharanlal Chandrakar, R/o. Ward No.12, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Chowk, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Principal Secretary, Department of Higher Education, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Chhattisgarh State Public Service Commission, through: its Chairman, Shankar Nagar Road, Bhagat Singh Square, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
----Respondents 2 For respective Petitioners : Mr. Jitendra Pali, Advocate Mr. Alok Dewangan, Advocate Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate For State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Govt. Advocate For Respondent/P.S.C. : Mr. Y.C. Sharma, Advocate Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 01/08/2018
1. These three writ petitions have been filed challenging the common action on the part of the respondents in holding the petitioners to be ineligible for further participation in the recruitment process on the post of Assistant Professors on the ground of the petitioners being overage.
2. Since the recruitment, the impugned action and the grounds raised by each of the petitioners being common, this Court proceeds to decide the writ petitions by a common order.
3. The fact which led to the writ petition is that an advertisement dated 15.05.2009 was published by the respondents for appointment of Assistant Professors in different subjects. The three petitioners herein had applied for the post in the subjects Geography and Economics. The application forms of the petitioners were accepted by the respondents and they were called upon for the written examination, which all the petitioners cleared. However, when they were called for the interview, they were declared ineligible on account of being overage.
4. The petitioner in WPS No. 2174/2011 on the cutoff date i.e. 01.01.2010 was 42 years, 8 months and 6 days. Likewise, the petitioner in WPS No. 1725/2012 on the cutoff date was 42 years and 7 months and the petitioner in WPS No. 1929/2012 on the cutoff date was aged 45 years. The bone of contention left to be considered in the present case is 3 whether the petitioners would be entitled for the age relaxation as has been provided in the advertisement. At this juncture it would be relevant to refer to the age criteria fixed by the respondents in their advertisement and the various provisions so far as the age relaxation is concerned, which are as under:-
"4 fu/kkZ f jr vk;q lhek%& fnukad 01-01-2010 dks 21 o"kZ iw.kZ dj yh gks fdUrq 32 o"kZ dh vk;q iw.kZ u dh xbZ gks ijUrq NRrhlx<+ ds LFkkuh; fuoklh vkosndksa ds fy, vk;q 32 o"kZ ds LFkku ij 37 o"kZ gksxhA vf/kdre vk;q lhek esa NRrhlx<+ 'kklu] lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx }kjk le;≤ ij tkjh fd;s x;s fuEu funsZ'kkas ds rgr~ NwV dh ik=rk gksxhA 4-1 lkekU; iz ' kklu foHkkx] NRrhlx<+ 'kklu }kjk mPpre vk;q lhek esa nh xbZ NwV sa% & 4-1-1 ;fn vH;FkhZ NRrhlx<+ 'kklu }kjk vf/klwfpr vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr ,oa vU; fiNM+k oxZ ¼xSj Øhehys;j½ dk gksdj jkT; dk ewy fuoklh gS] rks mls vf/kdre vk;q lhek esa ikap o"kZ rd dh NwV nh tk,xhA 4-1-2 NRrhlx<+ 'kklu ds LFkk;h@vLFkk;h@odZ pktZ ;k dkafVtsalh isM deZpkfj;ksa rFkk NRrhlx<+ jkT; ds fu;ekas@eaMyksa vkfn ds deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/k esa mPpre vk;q lhek 38 o"kZ jgsxhA ;gh vf/kdre vk;q ifj;kstuk dk;kZUo;u lfefr ds varxZr dk;Zjr deZpkfj;ksa ds fy, Hkh Lohdk;Z gksxhA bl dafMdk ds rgr~ NwV izkIr djus okys vH;FkhZ dks vf/kdre vk;q esa NwV laca/kh vU; dafMdkvksa ds rgr dksbZ NwV izkIr ugha gksxhA 4-1-3 xxxxxxxx 4-1-4 xxxxxxxx 4-1-5 xxxxxxxx 4-1-6 lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ds ifji= Ø- ,Q&1&2@2002@1@3 fnukad 02- 06-2004 ds vuqlkj f'k{kkdfeZ;ksa dks 'kkldh; lsok esa HkrhZ ds fy, mrus o"kZ dh NwV nh tk,xh ftrus o"kZ f'k{kkdehZ ds :i esa lsok dh gS] blds fy, 6 ekg ls vf/kd lsok dks ,d o"kZ dh lsok ekU; dh tk ldsxh rFkk og NwV vf/kdre 45 o"kZ dh vk;q lhek rd jgsxhA ftu oxkZsa dks iwoZ ls gh vk;q lhek esa fo'ks"k NwV dk ykHk fn;k tk jgk gS ¼vuq- tu- tkfr] v-fi-o-] fo/kok ifjR;Drk efgyk vkfn½ os bl funsZ'k ls izHkkfor ugha gksaxsA 4-1-7 xxxxxxxx 4-1-8 xxxxxxxx 4 4-1-9 ifjokj dY;k.k dk;ZØe ds varxZr xzhudkMZ /kkjh vkosndksa dks vf/kdre vk;q lhek esa 2 o"kZ dh NwV nh tk,xhA 4-1-10 xxxxxxxx 4-1-11 xxxxxxxx egRoiw. kZ Vhi%& ¼1½ N-x- 'kklu] lkekU; iz'kklu foHkkx ds ifji= Ø- ,Q 3&2@2002@1&3 jk;iqj fnukad 16-09-2008 ds }kjk tkjh fd, x, funsZ'kkuqlkj NRrhlx<+ jkT; ds LFkkuh; fuoklh vkosndkas ds fy, vf/kdre vk;q 37 o"kZ gksxh] ijUrq vU; fo'ks"k oxZ tSls& NRrhlx<+ ds fuoklh vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr] vU; fiNM+k oxZ ¼xSj Øhehys;j½] efgyk vkfn ds fy, vf/kdre vk;q lhek esa jkT; 'kklu }kjk tks NwV nh xbZ gS ,oa ftldk mYys[k mijksDrkuqlkj fd;k x;k gS] os NwV ;Fkkor~ ykxw jgsxh] ijUrq mijksDrkuqlkj mYysf[kr izko/kkuksa ds v/;k/khu jgrs gq, lHkh izdkj ds NwV dks lfEefyr djus ds ckn vf/kdre vk;q lhek 45 o"kZ ls vf/kd ugha gksxhA ¼2½ vk;q dh x.kuk fnukad 01-01-2010 ds lanHkZ esa dh tk,xhA
5. As regards the three writ petitioners are concerned, there is no dispute to the fact that they are all domiciles of the State of Chhattisgarh and as such all three petitioners are eligible for the relaxation provided by the State Government for a domicile of Chhattisgarh.
6. So far as the petitioner in WPS No. 2174/2011 is concerned, the petitioner is a candidate belonging to the schedule caste category. In addition the petitioner also is a Green Card Holder. So far as the petitioners in WPS No. 1725/2012 and WPS No. 1929/2012 are concerned they too belonged to the SC as well as the (OBC) category respectively. However, they are not the Green Card Holders as in the other case.
7. According to the petitioner in WPS No. 2174/2011, since the upper age limit for a domicile of Chhattisgarh fixed by the Government in the advertisement itself is 37 years and being from the reserved category, petitioner gets a relaxation of 5 years and in addition he is also entitled 5 for 2 years of relaxation for his holding the Green Card. Thus he with the relaxation of being a domicile and belonging to the reserved category apart from also being a Green Card Holder, the petitioner would become eligible candidate for recruitment for which he had applied.
8. So far as the petitioners in other two writ petitions are concerned, their contention is that they are also domiciles of the State of Chhattisgarh and they also belonged to the reserved category. In addition since they were working on contract basis with the respondent/State for a consideration period of time, they should get the relaxation to the extent of the period that they had served with the respondents on contract basis as is being given to the Shiksha Karmies. According to them if that relaxation is given, the two writ petitioners would also become eligible for participating in the recruitment process. Thus the three writ petitioners prayed for allowing the writ petitions and directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner also for appointment to the post of Assistant Professors on the subject that they have applied.
9. Per contra, Mr. Y.C. Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Advocate appearing for the Public Service Commission (PSC) submitted that since clause 4.1.2 clearly envisages the fact that so far as the candidates who are working with the State Government as permanent or a temporary employee or even as a work charged or a contingency paid employee, they would get the maximum age ceiling of 38 years and not beyond that and therefore since all three writ petitioners were in same form of government employment either contractual or temporary and the fact that they were all over 42 years of 6 age, they are not eligible for the said posts and they have been rightly declared ineligible for participation and prayed for rejection of the three writ petitions.
10. A perusal of the clauses of age relaxation provided in the advertisement, which has been reproduced in the preceding paragraph of this judgment, it clearly reveals that so far as the petitioner Santkumar Banjare in WPS No. 2174/2011 is concerned, he has not claimed for the age relaxation under clause 4.1.2 i.e. of being in Government employment, rather said petitioner has claimed for the age relaxation, firstly of his being a domicile of State of Chhattisgarh, secondly of his belonging to a reserved category and thirdly being a Green Card Holder.
11. It would also be relevant at this juncture to refer to the important note given in the advertisement after the age relaxation clauses, which shows that for the persons, who are taking age relaxation under the different clauses permissible added together should not exceed 45 years. This by itself makes it clear that the respondents themselves had permitted more than one relaxation except for the category of persons, who would come under clause 4.1.2 & 4.1.6 and so far as Santkumar Banjare is concerned, since he is not claiming the relaxation under clause 4.1.2 & 4.1.6, the arguments advanced by the PSC would not be sustainable and since on the cutoff date i.e. 01.01.2010 Santkumar Banjare was aged 42 years, 8 moths & 6 days on his being given the relaxation of being a domicile of State of Chhattisgarh and belonging to a reserved category and also having a Green Card all clubbed together he would be well within the maximum upper age limit of 45 years as is reflected from the note attached to the relaxation clause. Thus the 7 petitioner Santkumar Banjare in WPS No. 2174/2011 has been wrongly declared overage and ineligible for recruitment. The writ petition for the aforesaid reasons deserve to be and is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner from the stage of his being declared ineligible and to proceed further and pass appropriate orders of appointment, if found suitable.
12. So far as the other two petitioners are concerned, they too are domiciles of State of Chhattisgarh and also belonging to the reserved categories and for both these categories also if they are given the age relaxation, both of them could get a relaxation up till the age of 42. However, both the petitioners on the cutoff date as on 01.01.2010 were more than 42 years of age. The contention of the petitioners so far as their past services on contract basis is to be considered for the purpose of grant of age relaxation is concerned, the advertisement does not provide for any such relaxation and therefore the said benefit cannot be extended to the petitioners. In addition if the claim of the petitioners is for treating them or granting them the benefit at par with what is being provided to Shiksha Karmies, the same cannot be granted by the High Court in exercise of its power under Article 226. Granting relaxation for a particular category, fixing of the minimum eligibility criteria, be it the minimum qualification or be it the upper age limit are all matters which are exclusively within the domain of the Government. The High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 cannot substitute itself as a Rule making body or substitute itself as a Government agency to decide or provide relaxations, which otherwise is not provided under the Act, Rules or Advertisement. 8
13. What cannot be doubted is that, laying down the criteria for recruitment including the eligibility criteria, the requisite educational qualification are all well within the domain of the employer.
14. In Ekta Shakti Foundation Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2006 AIR SCW 3601 the Supreme Court also observed as under :-
"While exercising the power of judicial review of administrative action, the Court is not the appellate authority and the Constitution does not permit the Court to direct or advise the executive in matter of policy. The scope of judicial enquiry is confined to the question whether the decision taken by the Government is against any statutory provisions or is violative of the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution. Thus, the position is that even if the decision taken by the Government does not appear to be agreeable to the Court it cannot interfere.
The correctness of the reasons which prompted the Government in decision making, taking one course of action instead of another is not a matter of concern in judicial review and the Court is not the appropriate forum for such investigation. The policy decision must be left to the Government as it alone can adopt which policy should be adopted after considering all the points from different angles. In matter of policy decisions or exercise of discretion by the Government so long as the infringement of fundamental right is not shown Courts will have no occasion to interfere and the Court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters. In assessing the propriety of a decision of the Government the Court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the Government."
15. In the light of the aforesaid judicial pronouncements and the legal positions as it stands, the two petitioners in WPS Nos. 1725/2012 & 9 1929/2012 would not be entitled for any relief, so far as the age relaxation is concerned and this Court does not find any illegality on the part of the respondents in declaring them to be aged barred. Both these writ petitions, thus being devoid of merits, deserve to be and are accordingly dismissed.
16. As a consequence, WPS No. 2174/2011 stands allowed and WPS Nos.
1725/2012 & 1929/2012 stand dismissed.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved