Patna High Court
Ram Nivas Kumar vs The Union Of India & Anr on 11 July, 2016
Author: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
Bench: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2013 of 2016
===========================================================
1. Ram Nivas Kumar son of Satendra Sharma resident of village - Bhori, P.O.
Bhori, P.S. - Tekari, District - Gaya - 824236 (Bihar).
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Director, Staff Selection Commission (Central
Region), Government of India, New Delhi
2. The Assistant Director, Staff Selection Commission, Central Region,
Government of India, Allahabad (U.P.).
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nagendra Sharma
For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D Sanjay, Addl. Sol. General
Mr Rajesh Kumar Verma, CGC
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date: 11-07-2016
Pursuant to an advertisement issued by Staff Selection
Commission issued in the year 2015, petitioner, who is a General
Duty Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF),
responded and participated in the examination. The post in question
was for recruitment on the post of Sub Inspectors in either Delhi
Police or Central Armed Police Forces as well as the post of Assistant
Sub Inspector in CISF.
It is the case of the petitioner that after undergoing the
process of selection when it came down to final appointment, the
Assistant Director of Staff Selection Commission, Allahabad
informed the petitioner that since he is working as General Duty
Patna High Court CWJC No.2013 of 2016 dt.11-07-2016
2/4
Constable in CISF, he cannot be treated as a Civilian Employee
working under the Central Government, who can be given the benefit
of age relaxation, which the petitioner is now claiming through the
present writ application.
As per the counsel for the petitioner, in terms of
Annexure- 1 he has made a truthful declaration with regard to age
relaxation and category column and he did not play any hide or seek
while making such declaration. Stand of the counsel for the petitioner
is that for Central Government employees a five year age relaxation
has been provided for and if the same is extended to the petitioner,
petitioner will get an opening by virtue of his participation in the
selection process.
Union of India has filed a detailed counter affidavit
annexing the advertisement etc. and at the outset, points out the basic
fallacy in the line of argument adopted by the petitioner. The
significant word in the provision for age relaxation is "Central
Government Civilian Employees". Learned Additional Solicitor
General representing the Union of India submits that there is a
deliberate effort made on part of the petitioner right from the time of
filling of the application, including filing of the writ application, is
that he is ignoring the key word, which is Civilian Employee. The
word Civilian Employee has a connotation in law even under the
Patna High Court CWJC No.2013 of 2016 dt.11-07-2016
3/4
Central Government. Petitioner admittedly is working as a General
Duty Constable in CISF, which is a paramilitary organization. Clause
4(B) of Annexure- 1 itself provides for different category and codes
for those persons, who can be given benefit of age relaxation, which
was required to be filled up by all the candidates in the application
form. Reading of the codes and the details would show that there is
no provision for relaxation of age with regard to a candidate, who
belongs in the category of the petitioner.
The Court after looking at his declaration contained in
Annexure- 1 and the detailed provisions of the advertisement comes
to a considered opinion that the petitioner took a chance knowing
fully well that there is no provision for any age relaxation and now he
is trying to make out a case as if he is a victim, by pleading unfairness
on the part of the respondents.
The benefit of appointment on a public post can only be
derived in terms of the provisions of the advertisement. The Court is
not swayed by the argument of the counsel for the petitioner that since
the respondent authorities did not reject the application form at the
threshold, therefore, he derives some kind of right for consideration.
The provisions are unambiguous. There is no provision
in the advertisement for candidates, who are working in a paramilitary
organization with regard to relaxation in age. The provision is meant
Patna High Court CWJC No.2013 of 2016 dt.11-07-2016
4/4
for Civilian Employees whether general or unreserved category
working under the Central Government for a continuous period of
three years. The petitioner cannot smuggle himself into that provision
and read something in his favour.
The stand of the Union of India has a justification for
rejection of the claim of the petitioner vide Annexure- 6 dated
22.12.2015, which seems to be justified and it does not suffer from any kind of arbitrariness or any element of bias for defeating a so- called illusory right which the petitioner perceives about himself.
The writ application, therefore, has no merit. It is dismissed.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 11.7.2016 Transmission Date