Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Since the petitioner was not being paid salary, he approached this Court by means of Writ Petition No. 6982 (S/S) of 2009. The said writ petition was disposed of with direction to the opposite party no.2 to look into the matter and decide the petitioner's representation in accordance with law by a reasoned and speaking order. In pursuance thereof, the case of the petitioner was considered and it was found that the petitioner is overage as he was 42 years of age and the selection of the petitioner was made without permission of the existing Management committee and its Chairman. Therefore the approval granted by means of letter dated 14.07.2009 has been cancelled by the opposite party no.2 by means of the order/letter dated 31.05.2010. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court.

Sri Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that as per Rules, the age for selection on the post in question was between 18 to 40 years. As such the maximum age prescribed for a candidate was 40 years and admittedly the petitioner was more than 40 years of age at the time of selection. Therefore, he could not have been selected and the approval was granted inadvertently. Therefore after coming to know about the same it has rightly been cancelled. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. So far as the question of opportunity is concerned, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 submitted that it will be merely a useless formality because in the present writ petition also the petitioner has not disclosed as to how he was within the prescribed age at the time of selection. A candidate who was overage at the time of selection, as per Rules, could not have been appointed. Therefore, no purpose would be served by directing the respondents to pass a fresh order after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

In response thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the opportunity would have been afforded, the petitioner could have explained and filed the documents. However, he could not dispute the fact that the petitioner was overage at the time of making the application against the advertisement.

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

The selection process was initiated on account of creation of vacancy due to retirement of an employee on 30.06.2008, in which the petitioner was selected and his name was recommended on which the approval was granted by the opposite party no.2. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner was appointed and he had joined on the post of clerk in the opposite party no.3 institution but the petitioner was not being paid salary. Therefore, he had approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.6982 (S/S) of 2010 which was disposed of with direction to consider the representation of the petitioner. In compliance thereof, the representation of the petitioner was considered and it was found that the petitioner was more than 40 years of age and his selection was made without permission from the then existing management committee and it's Chairman therefore the selection of the petitioner has been cancelled and the approval granted thereon vide letter dated 14.07.2009 has also been cancelled by means of the order dated 31.05.2010 .

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhupendra Nath Hazarika and another versus State of Assam and others; (2013) 2 SCC 516 has held that when there is violation of recruitment rules, the recruitment is unsustainable.

The solitary ground argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. Violation of principles of natural justice can be said to be made if the facts in the impugned order are not admitted or are not beyond all dispute. In the present case it is not disputed that the petitioner was overage at the time of making application against the advertisement for the post in question, therefore, even if the opportunity is afforded to the petitioner, the result will not be different.