Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Referring to various recruitment rules pertaining to the services in different departments in the State of U.P., the learned Senior Advocate submits that no other rule for regular appointment or regularisation/absorption of a seasonal or temporary or work charge employees provides for upper age limit for regular appointment.

This apart, the meeting of the Selection Committee are not held regularly. The incumbents who have rendered long length of services in the department and have crossed the age of 45 years, for inaction of the district authorities in holding meeting of the Selection Committee regularly, cannot be deprived of the benefit of regular appointment by excluding them on the ground of being overage.

Whenever such a criteria is fixed and notified in the advertisement, some persons may fall on the right side and others may fall on the wrong side, resulting in their exclusion from the zone of consideration being overage. But for this reason only, the age limit or the upper age criteria fixed by the recruiting authority cannot be termed as arbitrary or violative of Article 14. The only issue which can be examined by the Court as to whether the enactment is likely to achieve the object sought to be achieved, in case of challenge to the same. Reference may be made to the five judges full bench judgement of this Court in the Case of Vijay Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. & others6.

The said proposition if accepted, would result in abrogation of law existing on the Statute book and it is not permitted for the Court to do so.

Resultantly, the only question remains as to whether the said power can be invoked in the matter of appointment of Seasonal Collection Amin on the regular post under the quota prescribed in the rules at this stage and further whether any such occasion had arisen before the Governor, an earlier point of time.

In the present matter, the petitioners being Seasonal Collection Amins are in the group which is one of the sources of recruitment under Rule 5 of the Rules 1974 (as amended by 5th Amendment 1992); they have worked in the department for a long time and some of them could not be considered for regular appointment due to the quota for appointment being only 35%. The said quota has been increased to 85% (in the case of Seasonal Collection Amin) which would expand the area of consideration against the existing vacancies on the date of amendment i.e. 01.10.2015. As per the instructions supplied by the learned Chief Standing Counsel, aims and object of amendment is to give chance for those Seasonal Collection Amins working in the department for appointment on regular post, who have rendered satisfactory services. The petitioners before the Court have been denied consideration on the ground of being overage though they have been found otherwise eligible. They never got chance for consideration to their claim for regular appointment in the previous selection process as the quota was less.

Furthermore, in view of the own stand of the State-respondent that the quota of regular appointment has been raised, in order to address the grievances of the large number of Seasonal Collection Amins/Peons, who are being retired on attaining the age of superannuation without getting a chance for regular appointment.

Since the recruitment in the present case has to be made by the District Level Committee, the State-respondent is, thereafter, required to issue necessary guidelines to the District authorities in the light of the decision of the Governor, so as to guide them as to how and in what manner, they shall proceed in the matter of an employee or a class of employee who are found overage but possess other eligibility requirement for regular selection.