Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:6961-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 4 of 2025 1 - Santosh Gupta S/o Late Shri Dharampal Gupta, Aged About 54 Years, Working as Assistant Revenue Inspector, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, Revenue and Civil District - Bilaspur (C.G) (Petitioner) versus ... Appellant 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary Urban and Administration Department, Mahanadi Bhawan New Raipur P.S. Rakhi District - Raipur Chhattisgarh 2 - Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur Through Commissioner Municipal Corporation, Revenue and Civil Dstrict – Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.)
Legal Reasoning
3 - Smt. Rupa Soni D/o Late Shri Ramesh Kumar Soni, Aged About 31 Years, Revenue Inspector, Municipal Corporation Bilaspur, R/o Beside Dr. Shukla Masanganj Bilaspur, District - Bilaspur (C.G.) For Appellant For State For No.2 Respondent ... Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikas Dubey, Advocate. : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate. Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 07-02-2025 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 Heard on I.A. No.01, application for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal. On due consideration, I.A. No.01 is allowed and the delay in filing the present writ appeal is condoned. 1. The present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 16-07-2024 passed in WPS No.3701 of 2013 with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, the appellant most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside the impugned order /judgment dated 17/07/2024 (Annexure A/1) and
Decision
further allow the writ petition by granting relief sought by the petitioner in the original writ petition. It is further most humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court may kindly grant any other relief which the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. ” 2. Brief facts, as mentioned in the writ appeal as well as the writ petition, are that the appellant/petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Ward Supervisor in the year 1997 on a daily wages with the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur/respondent No.2. The services of the appellant were regularized on 01-09-2008 to the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector. An advertisement was issued for various posts including 4 posts of Revenue Inspector on 02-05-2013 by the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur. The appellant/petitioner submitted his application for the post of Revenue Inspector as he had the requisite qualifications. 3 The candidature of the appellant was rejected on the grounds that he is aged about 42 years and his age of 42 years is more than the prescribed age limit for the said post i.e 35 years. However, the advertisement itself provides that the relaxation shall be given as per guidelines issued by the state government in time to time. The contention of the petitioner/appellant is that he is working under the Municipal Corporation, Bilaspur as Assistant Revenue Inspector since 2008 and at the time of issuance of the advertisement, the age of the appellant was 42 years, therefore, the authority concerned ought to have relaxed the age criteria. The appellant/petitioner relies upon the circulars and the guidelines whereby the Computer Operators appointed by the Municipal Corporation were already given the benefit of age relaxation and likewise, a circular was also issued by the State Government vide dated 24-08-2011 which deals with age relaxation. It has been further grievance of the petitioner that despite proper representation with respect to age relaxation, the respondent Municipal Corporation has not considered the case of the appellant, therefore, the actions of the Municipal Corporation are erroneous, arbitrary and discriminatory. Therefore, the petitioner filed the writ petition seeking following relief(s):- “1. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to set aside the list dated 06-08-2013 (vide Annexure P/1) whereby, name of the petitioner has been declared as ineligible candidate. 2. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to further directed the 4 authority to consider the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Revenue Inspector or Revenue Sub Inspector after giving age relaxation. 3. This Hon’ble Court be pleased to call for the entire record pertinent to recruitment process. 4. Any other relief as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Court.” After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the documents annexed with the writ petition, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner/appellant herein vide impugned order dated 16-07-2024. Hence, the present appeal has been filed with the aforesaid prayer. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the petitioner/appellant is already serving under the Municipal Corporation since last several years and he was entitled to get relaxation in upper limit of age critaria in the light of Circular dated 24-08-2011. He would further submit that similar situated persons were already granted benefit of relaxation in upper age limit, therefore, rejecting the representation of the petitioner and non-granting the age relaxation is clear discrimination and clear violation of fundamental right of the appellant enshrined under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Merit of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration while considering appointment to the post of Revenue Inspector and he was denied for the same only on the ground of age limit, whereas, the petitioner was entitled for age- 5 relaxation on the basis of various circulars of the State Government and the judgment dated 29-03-2012 passed by this Court in WPS No.5830/2010. Therefore, the impugned order dated 16-07-2024 may be set aside and the petition filed by the petitioner may be allowed. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 supported the impugned order and has submitted that as per the advertisement issued on 02-05-2013, the age limit prescribed for candidates was 18 to 35 years. The order dated 24-08-2011 relaxing the age of appointment of Computer Operators cannot be treated as a precedent. Further, the petitioner belongs to the General Category and is not entitled to get age relaxation in any manner, therefore, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents. 6. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of the documents on record, the learned Single Judge has observed that:- “6) From a perusal of the documents, it is clear that on the date of advertisement i.e. 02.05.2013, the age of the petitioner was 42 years; and his candidature was rejected on this ground alone. The petitioner belongs to the General Category and is not entitled to get age relaxation otherwise. 6 7) With regard to the age relaxation given to the Computer Data Entry Operators, a specific request was made to the State Government by the Municipal Corporation and in turn, the State Government relaxed the age critaria for the post of Computer Data Entry Operators vide order dated 24.08.2013. It is also stated in that order that it would not be treated as precedent. 8) In the present case, no such request was made to the State Government with regard to age relaxation and thus no such order was passed by the State Government, therefore, the claim of the parity would not be available to the petitioner. The petitioner was over age whereas; the cut-off age of the post of Revenue Inspector was 35 years. 9) Taking into consideration the above-stated facts, in the opinion of this Court, no good ground is available. Consequently, the instant petition is hereby dismissed. No costs. 7. It transpires from the record that on the date of advertisement i.e. 02-05-2013, the age of the petitioner was 42 years and there was no sufficient material on record to substantiate entitlement of the petitioner for age relaxation for the post for which advertisement was issued. Further, upon perusing the impugned order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an intra-court appeal, no interference is usually 7 warranted unless palpable infirmities are noticed. Learned Single Judge while passing the impugned order has adverted to all the facts of the case. We do not find any fault in the impugned order. Accordingly, the present writ appeal is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Aadil