Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramesh vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 9 October, 2012
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.12121 of 2012
Date of decision: 09.10.2012
Ramesh ......Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana & ors ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)
As per the averments made, the respondents vide advertisement No.1/2011, advertised posts of Assistant Lineman to be
appointed in Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and invited applications. As per the aforesaid advertisement, the basic qualification for the said post was fixed as Matriculation along with ITI in Electrician or Wireman or Lineman and the age limit as per the aforesaid advertisement was fixed as 18 to 40 years. Last date for submission of the application was 18.4.2011.
The petitioner, who allegedly was eligible for the said post submitted his application and also deposited the requisite fee on 25.3.2011. However, the petitioner was not called for interview. On enquiry, it was found that there was a corrigendum issued later on, according to which the upper age limit was reduced from 40 years to 35 years and since the petitioner was above the age of 35 years ( i.e. 35 years & eight days) on the last date of submission of application, he was not called for interview.
By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid action of the respondents for not calling him for interview on the CWP No.12121 of 2012 -2- ground that he was entitled to the relaxation in his age as per the advertisement Annexure P-1 being domicile of State of Haryana wherein it has been stated that the applicants, who are having domicile of State of Haryana shall be given age relaxation.
The argument raised is misconceived. No such relaxation is permissible to the candidate on the basis of domicile alone. A perusal of the vernacular copy of the advertisement would show that relaxation in age was permissible as per rules. No such rule has been mentioned in the writ petition. Neither any entitlement of the petitioner on such a rule has been shown.
At this stage, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the age relaxation on the ground that he is already working with the respondent-Corporation and he is entitled to relaxation of age for the said period of his service. According to the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner has joined the service of the respondent on 1.5.2011 as ALM on ad hoc basis. However, the aforesaid argument is again of no use to him, as admittedly, last date of submission of application was 18.4.2011.
In this view of the matter, this Court finds no merit in this petition.
Dismissed.
October 09, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE