Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narinder Kumar vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 26 November, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Civil Writ Petition No.6225 of 2012
Date of decision: 26.11.2012
Narinder Kumar
-----Petitioner(s)
Vs.
State of Haryana & ors.
-----Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
1. Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to
see judgment?
2. To be referred to reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present:- Mr. R.K. Arora, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Advocate
for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
---
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J.
1. As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner initially joined respondent 4 as Peon on 1.8.1988 and his services were regularized w.e.f. 1.1.1994. While in service, the petitioner acquired the qualification of Graduation in April, 1998.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was having the knowledge of typewriting. He requested the respondents to adjust/appoint him to the post of Clerk, keeping in view his CWP No.6225 of 2012 2 qualification and performance of work. He was allowed the appointment of Clerk on 1.9.1998 against an unaided management quota post. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the year 2002, two regular posts of Clerks fell vacant. Petitioner requested the authorities for considering his candidature against one of these posts. It is the further case of the petitioner that the respondents have not issued any advertisement, for a number of years, to fill up these two regular posts and during this period, the petitioner has crossed the upper age limit of 40 years. It is the further case of the petitioner that now, the respondent No.3 has issued an advertisement on 13.2.2012 for filling up of two regular posts of Clerks and one of the conditions mentioned in the advertisement with regard to the age is reproduced as under:-
"Age: Between 21 and 40 years on or before 15 days of the month next preceding the last date of application for general and 45 years for SC/ST of all States."
3. It is the further case of the petitioner that he possessed all the essential qualifications and is already working as Clerk in the same pay scale on temporary basis in the respondent-college for a number of years. He made a representation dated 18.2.2012 to respondent No.2 through proper channel, for granting him relaxation in age, so that he can CWP No.6225 of 2012 3 apply for the said post. The representation of the petitioner was recommended by respondents No.3 and 4, but till date, no decision has been taken thereon by respondent No.2. The petitioner was called for the interview vide letter dated 22.3.2012, but later on, he was told that his candidature cannot be considered, as he was not fulfilling the condition of upper age limit.
4. The petitioner has approached this Court, raising the grievance that the respondents are refusing to consider his candidature against the regular posts of Clerks on the ground that he was over age, as per the condition of upper age limit prescribed in the advertisement. Noticing the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, this Court passed the following order on 4.4.2012:-
"Notice of motion for 23.05.2012.
The petitioner will also be considered for the selection to the post but the result need not be declared to him if he is found suitable. However, on the other hand, on relative consideration of merit with other candidates, who are applying for the post if he is found to be not suitable, the said decision could be communicated to the petitioner.
The respondents shall be at liberty to approach this Court for any modification of the order."CWP No.6225 of 2012 4
5. Reply on behalf of respondents 3 and 4 has been filed, wherein the facts, as stated before this Court, have not been disputed. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the same read thus:-
"8. That the contents of Para No.8 of the writ petition are admitted that the petitioner applied for the post of clerk with a request for relaxation of minimum age limit on the ground that the petitioner is already working in the institution. Rest of the Para is wrong and has denied. It is wrong that the answering respondents informed the petitioner that the candidature of the petitioner is liable to be rejected on the ground of his not fulfilling the condition of upper age limit. It is wrong that the copy of the letter dated 22.3.2012 has been annexed with the petition as annexure P/7. As a matter of fact copy of the letter dated 22.3.2012 has been annexed with the petition as annexure P/6.
9. That the contents of Para No.9 of the writ petition are wrong and hence denied. In terms of the order dated 4.4.2012 passed by this Hon'ble Court the petitioner was considered for the selection to the post of clerk and the result of the selection has not been communicated to the petitioner and shall be produced before this Hon'ble Court during the hearing of the case."
6. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon judgments of this Court dated 25.9.2006 passed in CWP No.3081 of 2005 Umesh Kumar & ors. v. Kurukshetra University & ors. (Annexure P-11) and CWP No.17182 of 2006 Dr. Vanita R. CWP No.6225 of 2012 5 Vashisht v. State of Haryana & ors. decided on 26.11.2007 (Annexure P-12) and has argued that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments and the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that judgment dated 26.11.2007 passed in CWP No.17182 of 2006 pertains to an employee working with the respondent Nos.3 and 4 - institution itself. Learned counsel has further placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court dated 18.9.2012 passed in CWP No.7020 of 2012 Rajeev Kumar v. State of Haryana & ors., where in similar circumstances, case of the writ petitioner was conceded by the respondents, by filing the written statement in the following manner:-
"4. That the candidature of the petitioner was considered and it has been found that he is eligible for his selection and appointment in terms of relaxation in age allowed vide memo dated 20.12.2007, whereby, the department of Education adopted the instructions dated 29.05.2007 issued by the Chief Secretary, Haryana regarding age relaxation for the regular recruitments in the privately managed colleges in the State of Haryana. Copy of memo dated 20.12.2007 and copy of instructions 29.05.2007 are being annexed herewith as Annexure R-3/1 and R-3/2.
5. That the interview for the regular post of Clerk was held on 14.06.2012. The candidature of the petitioner and others have been considered and result of the interview was sealed and the same was sent to CWP No.6225 of 2012 6 the Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and Department of Higher Education, Haryana, Panchkula in terms of the order passed by the Hon'ble High Court. The candidature of the petitioner has not been declined on account of overage and he has been considered eligible on account of age in terms of the Govt. memo dated 20.12.2007 (R-3/1). Copy of result kept in sealed cover will be produced before the Hon'ble Court at the time of hearing."
7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.3 and 4 could not dispute the applicability of the judgments in the instant case, as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner.
8. Learned State counsel also could not dispute the fact that in the case of Rajeev Kumar (supra) in CWP No.7020 of 2012, relaxation in the age was granted to the petitioner in terms of memo.dated 20.12.2007, whereby the Department of Education in Haryana had adopted the instructions dated 29.5.2007 issued by the Chief Secretary, Haryana, regarding age relaxation in regular recruitment in the privately managed colleges in the State of Haryana.
9. At this stage, it is also relevant to notice that the result of the petitioner has also been produced before this Court in sealed cover, which was opened. As per the aforesaid result, the petitioner falls at serial No.2 of the Select List and thus, as per the result, the petitioner has been selected in order of merit at CWP No.6225 of 2012 7 serial No.2. The result has been re-sealed and handed over to learned counsel for respondents No.3 and 4.
10. Thus, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to give the benefit of relaxation of age to the petitioner and take further necessary action for consequential benefits forthwith.
November 26, 2012 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) ak JUDGE