Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ganga Dutt vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission on 10 July, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.10396 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of decision: 10th July, 2012
Ganga Dutt
Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Staff Selection Commission
Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. Ashok Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Hitender Singh Lalli, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana
for the respondent.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. (ORAL)
Civil Misc. No.8599 of 2012 Application is allowed and the date of hearing in the writ petition is preponed for today.
Civil Writ Petition No.10396 of 2012 The respondent vide an advertisement dated 18th March, 2011, which was published on 19th March, 2011 in various newspapers, published 1000 posts of Assistant Linemen in Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam. Thereafter, a corrigendum dated 6th April, 2011, which was published in various newspapers on 7th April, 2011, was issued notifying that the age of the candidates should be between 18 to 35 years instead of 18 to 40 years as advertised earlier. Respondent No.3 further issued a corrigendum dated 1st July, 2011, according to which the posts of Assistant Linemen were enhanced from 1000 to 4131. Civil Writ Petition No.10396 of 2012 (O&M) 2
According to the first advertisement, the last date for submission of applications was 18th April, 2011, whereas vide advertisement dated 1st July, 2011 (Annexure P-4), it was stated that the applications be submitted upto 18th July, 2011.
In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has averred that he had applied in response to the advertisement dated 18th March, 2011 for the aforesaid post of Assistant Lineman and since there was a specific note that the applicants who had already applied in view of the advertisement dated 18th March, 2011 need not apply again, the petitioner did not apply again as per the corrigendum issued on 6th April, 2011 as published in the newspapers on 7th April, 2011.
It is the further grievance of the petitioner that in spite of the fact that hundreds of candidates have got the call letters for interview, the petitioner who is otherwise eligible has not been issued the interview letter. It has been averred before this Court that in fact the petitioner is eligible as per the first advertisement as well as the second one, as in the first advertisement he was eligible being between the age group of 18-40 years, which has been modified to 18-35 years vide advertisement dated 7th April, 2011. The petitioner has further relied upon a specific note in the advertisement dated 7th April, 2011 to submit that he was entitled to relaxation of age being an employee of Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited as he has rendered service in the said department for more than four years and he is still working there, and if the aforesaid benefit of age relaxation is given to him, he is eligible and entitled to be considered.
No doubt, an employee of the department is entitled to relaxation of age as per the note given in the advertisement. However, to Civil Writ Petition No.10396 of 2012 (O&M) 3 claim the age relaxation, it was incumbent upon the petitioner to apply for the said post through proper channel, i.e. through the said department. Admittedly, the petitioner had not applied through proper channel. Since the petitioner has failed to apply through proper channel, the argument raised by him that he is entitled to relaxation of age cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
It may also be noticed at this stage that in CWP No.11520 of 2012 decided on 9th July, 2012, the petitioner in that case had challenged the action of the respondents whereby age limit of the candidates was amended from 18-40 years to 18-35 years. In the said writ petition, a short reply was filed by the respondents whereby order dated 10th January, 2006 prescribing the age limit for recruitment of Assistant Lineman to be between 18 to 35 years, was placed on record. It was further stated that even while sending the requisition to the Haryana Staff Selection Commission, requirement of age of the candidates was mentioned as 18 to 35 years and in this view of the matter, this Court had declined to interfere in the said writ petition, which was dismissed.
No other point is raised.
Dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE July 10, 2012 rps