Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2277 (PNJ)

Baljinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-08-10

A.N.JINDAL, M.M.KUMAR

body2010
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of direction to the respondents to extend benefit of notification dated 24.5.2010 (Annexure P-3) amending Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Services) Rules, 1994. According to the amendment made by insertion of Rule 5A, the upper age limit of appointment in service for any category of person seeking employment has been raised from 35 to 37. The aforesaid amendment reads as under :- "5A. Increase in upper age limit - Notwithstanding anything contained in rule 5, on and with effect from the commencement of the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Amendment Rules, 2010, where in any other service Rules, or in Government instructions, the upper age limit for appointment to any service or for any category of persons, is different from thirty-five years, it shall be deemed to have been increased by two years." 2. The petitioner has claimed that the advertisement for appointment to the post of PCS (Executive Branch) has been issued on 28.11.2009 and the last date of receipt of the applications is 28.12.2009 alleging that the benefits of notification dated 24.5.2010 by insertion of Rule 5(A) has been extended to those who are to take PCS (Judicial Branch) examination and whereas the same benefit has been denied to the petitioner. The petitioner has attached advertisement for PCS (Judicial Branch) dated 10.5.2010 (Annexure P-2). It is clearly mentioned in the advertisement that the last date of receipt of the application for PCS (Judicial Branch) Examination, 2010 is 17.6.2010. 3. In response to the notice of motion, the respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their reply and have pleaded that there is no discrimination because for PCS (Judicial Branch) Examination, 2010, the last date for receipt of the application is 17.6.2010 which is the cut off date for determining the eligibility in all respect and since the amendment by insertion of Rule 5A has been given effect from 24.5.2010, the applicant for appointment to PCS (Judicial Branch) would be entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid amendment, whereas the last date for determining the eligibility in the case of petitioner who is seeking appointment to PCS (Executive Branch) is 28.12.2009. Therefore, there is no discrimination in treating two different categories differently. Therefore, there is no discrimination in treating two different categories differently. It has also been pleaded that the petitioner along with others had earlier approached this Court by filing CWP No. 20311 of 2009 which was dismissed on 24.2.2010. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the last date of receipt of the application has to be regarded as the cut off date for determining the eligibility of the candidates. In the case of the petitioner, who are prospective candidate for PCS (Executive Branch) Examination, the last date for receipt of application is 28.12.2009 which is much before the date of amendment made on 24.5.2010 by inserting Rule 5A. The aforesaid proposition of law is well settled by numerous judgments rendered by Honble the Supreme Court in the cases of Dr. M.V. Nair v. UOI 1993(2) S.C.T. 77 : (1993) 2 SCC 429, Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan and others, 1993(2) S.C.T. 279 : 1993 Suppl. (3) SCC 168 and Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. UOI, 2007(2) S.C.T. 19 : (2007) 3 SCC 54. Therefore, the benefit should have been given to those whose eligibility is to be determined after the date of amendment inserting Rule 5A of the Rules. It is obvious that the last date for receipt of application in the case of PCS (Judicial Branch) is 17.6.2010 and, therefore, the candidates applying for the aforesaid appointment would be entitled to the benefit of the amendment. Accordingly, there is no merit in the argument raised on behalf of the petitioner. 5. The argument of the learned State counsel that the petitioner had earlier filed a CWP No. 20311 of 2009 also does not require any detailed consideration because there was no prayer made in the aforesaid petition for seeking benefit of the notification dated 24.5.2010 whereby Rule 5A has been inserted. It has given the petitioner a fresh cause of action and, therefore, there is no principle of res-judicata applicable to the case of the petitioner. In view of the above, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed.