Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:1924 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 227 of 2025 • Atul Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Chain Lal Dewangan Aged About 43 Years R/o Shriram Colony, Behind Stadium Raigarh, District Raigarh, C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Skill Development Technical Education And Employment Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur, C.G. 2. Director Directorate, Employment And Training, Indrawati
Legal Reasoning
Bhawan, Block- 4, First Floor, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District- Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer. 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 13/01/2025 1. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the rejection of his candidature by the Director, Employment and Training, New Raipur, Atal Nagar. The candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has crossed 38 years of age and is not eligible in light of Clause 5 (ii) of the advertisement. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner for the post of Training Officer (Electrician). 10.2. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner eligible for the post of Training Officer (Electrician) and the appointment order may kindly be issued in the OBC Category. 10.3. That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate. 3 10.4. Cost of the petition.” 3. The facts of the present case are that respondent No.2 issued an advertisement on 05.05.2023 for recruitment to the post of Training Officer in 23 streams. The petitioner submitted that he filed application form as he had the requisite qualification for the advertised post, thereafter, the petitioner participated in the written examination. The result was declared and the petitioner was in the list of successful candidate. The petitioner was called for verification of the documents and the list of required documents was also appended to the call letter. The petitioner appeared before the respondent authorities for verification of the documents. The petitioner belongs to the ‘Other Backward Class (Non-creamy Layer) & a domicile of Chhattisgarh. Despite verification of documents, the respondent authorities have not issued appointment orders in favour of the petitioner on the ground that at the time of submission of application form, the age of the petitioner was 42 years 11 months and according to one of the conditions i.e. condition No. 5(ii), he was overage. 4. Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner is the permanent residents of Chhattisgarh; he belongs to the OBC (Non-creamy layer) category & a domicile of Chhattisgarh and at the time of 4 submission of the application form, his age was 42 years 11 months. He further submitted that according to clause 5 of the advertisement, the age limit for permanent resident of the State of Chhattisgarh was 18 years to 40 years. He also submitted that according to clause 5(i), the aspirants of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) would get relaxation in age up to 5 years. It is further contended that according to Clause 5(ii), the maximum age limit for permanent/temporary/work-charged and contingency- paid employees of boards or under the State of Chhattisgarh was 38 years. It is also contended that the respondent authorities committed an error of law in holding that the maximum age limit for a contingency-paid employee or work- charged employee would be 38 years and they are not entitled to get a concession of 5 years in age as mentioned in Clause 5(i) & 5(ii) of the advertisement and condition for contractual employee not mentioned in the advertisement. He would refer to the Important Note (महत्वपू्ቓ(cid:8) टि(cid:11)प) (i), which says that after extending the benefit of all concession/relaxation, the age of a candidate should not be more than 45 years. He further submitted that the age of the petitioner was 42 years 11 months which is below 45 years; therefore, he is within the zone of consideration. It is further 5 contended that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Training Officer. In addition learned counsel for the petitioner submits the State Government has passed a circular dated 12.06.2024 by which it is specifically mentioned that the maximum age relaxation would be 45 years and that can be granted to the original resident of State of Chhattisgarh and the employees of the State Government working in any department, corporation etc or in the contractual service. In each and every service this relaxation has to be given. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that a specific condition was inserted with regard to permanent/ temporary/ worked- charged or contingency-paid employees working within the State of Chhattisgarh; the maximum age limit provided for such aspirants was 38 years. He further submitted that the age of the petitioner was more than 38 years; therefore, his candidature was rejected. 6. Ms. Poorva Tiwari would refer to Rules 8(I)(d) (i)&(ii) of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Training (Non-Gazetted) Class III Service Recruitment Rules, 2014, which deals with the age relaxation for the employees of the State Government. She 6 further submitted that according to this rule, the age of the candidate who is a permanent or temporary Government servant should not be more than 38 years and a candidate holding a temporary post and applying for another post should not be more than 38 years of age. She would also submit that since the age of the petitioner was more than 38 years; his candidature was rejected by the respondents. It is also contended that the rule will prevail over circular. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 8. Rule 8 (I) (b) says that the upper age limit shall be relaxable up to a maximum of five years if a candidate belongs to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and O.B.C. (Non- Creamy Layer). Rule 8 (I) (c) further says that the upper age limit shall also be relaxable up to a maximum of 10 years for women candidates. A conjoint reading of Rules 8 (I)(b) and (I) (d) would make it clear that a candidate holding a temporary or permanent post with the State of Chhattisgarh applying for another post should not be more than 38 years of age, but if the candidates are members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes, they will get additional relaxation up to the age of five years. In the rules as well as in the advertisement, there is a specific provision 7 that after extending all relaxation, the age should not exceed 45 years, meaning thereby, a candidate belonging to a reserved category shall get an additional age relaxation of five years along with relaxation which is provided to a candidate of general category. 9. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the considered opinion of this Court, the respondent authorities wrongly rejected the candidature of the petitioner; therefore, the decision taken by the respondent authorities whereby the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected is hereby quashed. The relevant para of the State Government circular dated 12.06.2024 is as under:- “5. सामान्य ्ቚशासन टिवभाग के उपरो्ሹ टिनቖኔ(cid:28)श में ቖኔी गई व्यवस्था अनुसार समस्त ्ቚकार की छू (cid:11)ों को टिमलाकर टिቖኔनांक 31.12.2023 तक अधि,कतम आयु सीमा 45 व्ቧ(cid:8) मानी गई है। त्ुसार छ्ቈीसगढ़ के मूल टिनवासी जि5समें स्थानीय टिनवासी एवं राज्य के शासकीय सेवकों या टिनगम, मण्डल में काय(cid:8)रत या संटिवቖኔा में काय(cid:8)रत हो, के संबं, में सामान्य ्ቚशासन टिवभाग के परिरप्ቔों में ቖኔी गई व्यवस्था अनुसार समस्त छू (cid:11)ों को टिमलाकर स्थानीय टिनवाजिसयों के लिलए अधि,कतम आयु टिቖኔनांक 31.12.2023 की ቝኌस्थधित में 45 व्ቧ(cid:8) मान्य करते हुए काय(cid:8)वाही की 5ा सकती है" 10. The respondent No. 2 is directed to consider case of the petitioner and to pass necessary orders within a period of four 8 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in view of discussion made as above. 11. With the aforesaid observation(s), the instant petition is
Decision
hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat