Jharkhand High Court
Ranjit Ranjan vs Personnel And Adminis Reform on 15 April, 2014
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W. P. (S) No. 113 of 2013
.....
Ranjit Ranjan ... ... Petitioner
-V e r s u s-
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. ... ... Respondents
...
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
...
For the Petitioner : - M/s P. K. Deomani, Adv.
For the Respondents : - JC to Sr. SC-II
For the JPSC : Mr. Sanjay Piparwal.
...
02/15.04.2014Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The grievance of the petitioner in the instant case was that in spite of having shown successful in the written examination, he was not called for interview for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer under the Combined Junior Engineer Recruitment Examination, 2012 held by the respondents.
Apparently, as per the pleading of the parties, the petitioner was working as a contractual employee/ Junior Engineer under the Sarva Siksha Abhiyan and was denied the benefit of relaxation of 5 years of age, which was permissible to the temporary/permanent employees of the State Government.
The respondents have justified their refusal to allow the petitioner to face the interview on the ground that such relaxation could not have been granted to the petitioner being a contractual employee as the contractual employee does not come within the permanent/temporary service.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the aforesaid issue appears to be clearly answered by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment rendered in L.P.A. No. 289 of 2013 pronounced on 10.03.2014, a copy of which has also been produced on behalf of the respondent-counsel. By the said judgment, it has been held that the contractual employee cannot claim the benefit of age relaxation as being at par temporary employee of any Government service. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to dispute the aforesaid legal position. Therefore, the instant writ petition appears to be untenable in law as the issue raised herein is covered by the judgment referred hereinabove(Supra).
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J.) Kamlesh/Alok