Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Gorkha Ram Pandev vs State & Ors on 27 August, 2008
Author: Gopal Krishan Vyas
Bench: Gopal Krishan Vyas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
:ORDER:
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5575/2006 (Gorkha Ram Pandev Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of Order :: 27.08.2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.Anil Kumar Singh, for the petitioner.
Mr.N.M. Lodha, Addl. Advocate General.
Mr.Tarun Joshi, for respondent No.3.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to consider his case for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III and provide him appointment from the date when his juniors have been granted appointment on the said post with all consequential benefits.
The case of petitioner is that he is substantively working on the post of Class-IV employee in the Panchayat Samiti, Ratangarh in Government Primary School Khandwa, 2 Ratangarh since 08th January, 1992 and while working on the said post petitioner applied for recruitment on the post of Teacher Gr.III. As per petitioner, he is possessing all requisite qualifications, therefore, he was allowed to appear in the competitive examination conducted in pursuance of advertisement dated 02nd June, 2004. In the written test conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, petitioner secured 136 marks in the general category and cut of marks in general category were also 136, therefore, on the basis of marks obtained by him, he was entitled to be considered for appointment. But petitioner has been denied appointment on the ground that he has crossed 33 years of age and maximum age for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III is 33 years.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that in the various State Service and Sub-ordinate Service Rules, the age relaxation has been granted to the government employee up to 40 years of age and petitioner being employee of Panchayati Raj Department is to be treated government employee and he is to be given age relaxation up to 40 years of age. Further it is submitted that respondents have erroneously adjudged suitability of petitioner as on 01st January, 2005, but in fact his eligibility with regard to age was to be assessed as on 01st January, 1999 as provided in the 3 advertisement in para 6 (9) whereby it is provided that "ऐस आवदक ज ददन क 1.1.1999 क आय स म क दष स प त थ, इस पर क हत प त ह ग" । आय स म म" यह श%शथलन कवल एक ब र उपर क ररषकय क शलए ल ग, ह ग ।"
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner's candidature has been rejected on the ground that he was more than 33 years of age on 01st January, 2005 but in fact his eligibility was to be seen on 01st January, 1999 while granting age relaxation as provided for the employees of State Government/Panchayati Raj Department.
In reply filed by the respondents, it is submitted that petitioner was over age on 01st January, 1999 because on that date he was 38 years old and was not entitled for any relaxation in age. In this view of the matter, it is submitted that writ petition may be dismissed as petitioner is not entitled for any age relaxation.
I have considered rival submission made by both learned counsel for the parties and perused entire pleadings of the case.
Upon perusal of advertisement dated 02nd June, 2004 4 (Annexure-1), it is revealed that age relaxation has been granted by the respondents to different categories including the employees working on the post of Secretary in the Panchayati Raj Department up to three years. Further relaxation has been given to those temporary teachers who were within age limit at the time of appointment on temporary basis. Meaning thereby specifically certain relaxation in age has been granted to the different categories of the employees. The petitioner being Class-IV employee of the respondent-department appeared in the written examination and secured 136 marks which is within merit as per cut of marks published by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Therefore, although no relaxation is specifically provided for Class-IV employee of the State Government/Panchayati Raj Department, but there is power to relax rules in exceptional cases under Rule 296 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. Rule 296 of the Rules of 1996 reads as under:-
"296 Power to relax rules.- On a reference by the Panchayat Samitis/Zila Parishads concerned, in an exceptional case where the Administrative department is satisfied that operation of the rules relating to ager or regarding requirement of experience for recruitment, if any, causes undue hardship in any particular case or where the Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient to relax any of the provisions of these rules with respect to age or experience of any person, it may, with the concurrence of the Department of Personnel and 5 Administrative Reforms, relax the relevant provisions of these rules to such extent and subject to such conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner, provided that such relaxation shall not be less favourable than the provisions already contained in these Rules."
In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that Class-IV employee who possess B.A. and B.Ed. qualification working on substantive basis has been denied appointment on the ground that on 01st March, 1999 or on 01st May, 2005 he was not within age limit. But at the same time, it is obvious from the fact that he appeared as in-service candidate while working on the post of Class-IV employee in the examination conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III in which he was declared successful, but he has been denied appointment because there is no relaxation in age for Class-IV employees in the respondent-department. The said benefit of relaxation has been granted to the Secretaries working in the Panchayat Samitis but no relaxation has been granted to Class-IV employee.
In this view of the matter, this writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondent Panchayati Raj Department to consider the case of petitioner for grant of age 6 relaxation under Rule 296 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 within a period of two months from today and take final decision with regard to granting age relaxation to the petitioner and if finally it is decided that petitioner is entitled for age relaxation then his case may be considered for appointment as per his merit. No order as to costs.
(GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS),J.
A.K. Chouhan/-