Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mahabir Singh vs Haryana Staff Selection Commission And ... on 13 July, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.10447 of 2012
Date of decision: 13th July, 2012
Mahabir Singh
Petitioner
Versus
Haryana Staff Selection Commission and another
Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
Present: Mr. Rajkapoor Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Roopak Bansal, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana
for respondent No.1.
Mr. Sanjay Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.2.
RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. (ORAL)
The respondent vide an advertisement dated 18th March, 2011, which was published on 19th March, 2011 in various newspapers, published 1000 posts of Assistant Lineman 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.1 further issued a corrigendum dated 1st July, 2011, according to which the posts of Assistant Lineman were enhanced from 1000 to 4131.
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-7), it was stated that the applications be submitted upto 18th July, 2011.
Civil Writ Petition No.10447 of 2012 (O&M) 2
In this 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. It has further been stated that he is fully eligible to be appointed against the aforesaid post as per the advertisement. It is the further case of the petitioner that he is working with the respondent- department as an Assistant Lineman on DC rates under SDO 'OP' Sub Division, UHBVNL Sadhura with effect from 18th October, 2008 and is still continuously working on the said post with the respondent department. According to the petitioner, despite the fact that he is fully eligible for consideration to the aforesaid post, he has not received any call letter from the respondent No.1. On his visit to the respondent department, he has been told that he, being above the age of 35 years at the time of submission of his application, was ineligible in view of the corrigendum dated 1st July, 2011, wherein the eligibility with regard to the age group has been reduced from 18-40 years to 18-35 years.
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 about four years and Civil Writ Petition No.10447 of 2012 (O&M) 3 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.
A similar point was raised in Civil Writ Petition No.10396 of 2012, which has been dismissed by this Court on 10th July, 2012. While dismissing the aforesaid writ petition, this Court observed as under:
"No doubt, an employee of the department is entitled to relaxation of age as per the note given in the advertisement. However, to 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."
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner could not dispute that there is no distinction between the facts of the cases.
Thus, this petition is also dismissed in terms of the order passed in the aforesaid CWP No.10396 of 2012.
(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE July 13, 2012 rps