Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narinder Kumar Chhibba vs State Of Punjab And Another on 23 January, 2012
Author: Satish Kumar Mittal
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, T.P.S. Mann
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 1310 of 2012
DATE OF DECISION : 23.01.2012
Narinder Kumar Chhibba
.... PETITIONER
Versus
State of Punjab and another
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present: Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J.
The petitioner is a practicing Advocate, who claims to have practice of more than 26 years. He is more than 50 years of age, as his date of birth is 21.11.1961. He is orthopeadically handicapped. He has filed the instant petition, seeking quashing of the advertisement/notification dated 2.1.2012 (Annexure P-1) for appointment to Punjab Superior Judicial Service by direct recruitment, in the State of Punjab, to the extent of not providing any reservation for persons belonging to physically handicapped; and further seeking direction to the respondents to provide age relaxation for the persons belonging to the physically handicapped category even against the post under the General category.
CWP No. 1310 of 2012 -2-
It is the case of the petitioner that in the aforesaid advertisement/notification dated 2.1.2012 (Annexure P-1), the maximum age limit has been provided as forty five years as on 31.1.2012, i.e. the last date of submission of applications, and in the case of Scheduled Castes/ Backward Classes, the upper age limit is relaxable by five years.
Learned counsel has raised two submissions. Firstly, that in the said advertisement, no post has been reserved for the category of physically handicapped persons and this action of the respondents is illegal and arbitrary. Secondly, learned counsel submits that in view of the instructions dated 24.1.1979, issued by the Punjab Government, relaxation in maximum age limit, in case of physically handicapped persons, can be granted upto ten years. Therefore, after granting the said relaxation, the petitioner should be treated as eligible to apply for the post, advertised vide the aforesaid advertisement.
So far as the first submission is concerned, thrice the post in the physically challenged category was advertised earlier, but due to non- availability of a suitable person, the post could not be filled up. Thereafter, as per rules, the said post was converted into General category. In the present advertisement, no post has been reserved in the category of physically handicapped persons. The petitioner, though is a physically handicapped person, has applied against the post in the General category. The post in the physically challenged category having been rightly converted into General category, the petitioner cannot ask for reserving a CWP No. 1310 of 2012 -3- post for him.
Regarding the second submission of the petitioner that he be given relaxation in the maximum age limit upto ten years in terms of the instructions dated 24.1.1979, a perusal of the advertisement dated 2.1.2012 reveals that no post in the category of physically handicapped persons has been reserved, therefore, granting of relaxation in upper age limit under the aforesaid instructions does not arise. Simply because the petitioner is a physically handicapped person, the relaxation in the upper age limit cannot be granted to him against General category posts. In the advertisement dated 2.1.2012, no provision has been made for grant of age relaxation in the case of physically handicapped persons. The instructions, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, are applicable only in the situation where there is a post reserved for the category of physically handicapped persons, but in the instant case, there is no post reserved for the said category. Therefore, the petitioner, though is a physically handicapped person, cannot be granted relaxation in the upper age limit against General category posts.
Dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
January 23, 2012 ( T.P.S. MANN )
ndj JUDGE