Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3723 (ALL)

Sachidanand Pandey v. State of U. P.

2015-11-30

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, YASHWANT VARMA

body2015
JUDGMENT The learned Single Judge has dismissed a writ petition filed by the appellants (original petitioners 1, 2 and 3) by the impugned orders dated 12 October 2015 and 14 October 2015. 2. The only ground which has weighed with the learned Single Judge is that the appellants had not applied in pursuance of the advertisement and hence, would not be entitled to challenge the advertisement in question. The appellants have sought to challenge the advertisement dated 21 January 2015 in respect of several posts in the Department of Handloom and Textiles of the State Government. The first appellant is concerned with the post of Master Dyer while the second and third appellants are concerned with the post of Power Loom and Textiles Inspector. 3. All the appellants are in service candidates employed by the State Government. According to them, they are employees of the same department and in terms of a Government Order dated 27 August 2013, they would be entitled to the benefit of an age relaxation of five years. The advertisement was challenged on the ground that such an age relaxation has not been granted. The advertisement refers to the maximum age limit as 40 years and according to the appellants, they fall within the maximum extent of the age relaxation contemplated by the Government Order dated 27 August 2013. 4. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the appellants had not applied in pursuance of the advertisement. As the advertisement stands, the maximum age limit prescribed therein is 40 years. The appellants seek the benefit of the Government Order dated 27 August 2013. Whether the appellants would be entitled to age relaxation as claimed, is a separate aspect on which we have not expressed any opinion at any stage. However, there was no reason or justification for the learned Single Judge to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that the appellants had not applied since even if the appellants were to apply, their candidature would not have been considered in view of the terms of the advertisement prescribing the maximum age limit as 40 years. Hence, the case of the appellants ought to have been evaluated on the basis as to whether they were entitled to age relaxation under the terms of the Government Order dated 27 August 2013. Hence, the case of the appellants ought to have been evaluated on the basis as to whether they were entitled to age relaxation under the terms of the Government Order dated 27 August 2013. We clarify that we are not expressing any view at all on the merits of the case, but we are of the view that the matter would require fresh consideration by the learned Single Judge. Hence, we set aside the impugned orders of the learned Single Judge dated 12 October 2015 and 14 October 2015 insofar as the appellants are concerned and restore Writ-A No.58231 of 2015 for fresh decision. 5. The special appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.