Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Employment And Training Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2025:CGHC:1098 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 63 of 2025 • Bhupendra Kumar Verma S/o Late Shri Puhup Lal Verma Aged About 45 Years R/o Shubhas Ward Behind BNB High School, Tilda-Newra, Tehsil Tilda-Newra, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Employment And Training Department Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. Director Directorate of Employment and Training Department,
Legal Reasoning
Indrawati Bhawan, Block-4, First Floor, Nava Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Divisional Joint Director Employment And Training Division Raipur, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Ms. Poorva Tiwari, Panel Lawyer. 2 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 08.01.2025 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 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/ quash the impugned rejection order/information whereby the candidate of petitioner has been rejected for appointment on the post of Training Officer (Mechanic Diesel) (Annexure-P/08). 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to grant the benefit of age relaxation to the petitioner as per clause 5(i) and important note (i) of advertisement for the post of Training Officer (Mechanic Diesel), thereby consider the candidature of petitioner as eligible & consider the candidature of petitioner for appointment on the post of Training Officer (Mechanic Diesel) with all consequential benefits. 3 10.3 This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other writ/ writs, order/ orders, relief/ reliefs in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon'ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioners.” 3. The facts of the present case are that respondent No.2 issued an advertisement on 05.05.2023 (effective from 06.05.2023) for recruitment to the post of Training Officer in 23 streams. The petitioner submitted his 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 44 years 06 months & 08 days and according to one of the conditions i.e. condition No. 5(ii), he was overage. 4. Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, counsel appearing for the petitioner would 4 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 submission of the application form, his age was 44 years 06 months & 08 days. 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:10)प) (i), which says that after extending the benefit of all concession/relaxation, 5 the age of a candidate should not be more than 45 years. He further submitted that the age of the petitioner was 44 years 06 months & 08 days which is below 45 years; therefore, he is within the zone of consideration. It is further 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. 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 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 6 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 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 7 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 respondent No. 2 is directed to consider case of the petitioner and to pass necessary orders within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid observation(s), the instant petition is hereby
Decision
disposed of in terms of WPS No. 02/2025. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat