Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2050 (ALL)

Roop Ram v. State of U. P.

2016-05-26

UMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA, V.K.SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT Ref: Delay Condonation Application For the reasons stated in the affidavit, filed in support of Delay Condonation Application, as the same constitutes sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing Special Appeal, the Delay Condonation Application is allowed. Special Appeal is treated to have been filed well within time. Ref: Special Appeal Roop Ram s/o Babu Lal is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 5.4.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 56559 of 2011 (Roop Ram Vs. State of U.P. & another) wherein the request made by the petitioner appellant for quashing the order dated 23.8.2011 passed by the Director General, Family Welfare, U.P. at Lucknow has been turned down and net effect of the same has been that the claim of petitioner has not been considered for being offered appointment for the post of Health Worker (Male) in pursuance of the advertisement dated 16.2.2010. On the matter being taken up today Sri Satyaveer Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner appellant, submitted before this Court that as far as age bar is concerned, same is not at all applicable or attracted in reference of Health Workers (Male), who have proceeded to complete their training in question, and in all eventuality Health Workers (Male) as per the scheme of things provided for ought to have been offered appointment, in view of this, the orders passed by the authority concerned as well as learned Single Judge of this Court deserve reversal by this Court and present special appeal deserves to be allowed. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, has contended that petitioner appellant has clearly failed to understand the impact of the provisions of Rule 10 of Uttar Pradesh Medical Health & Family Welfare Department Health Workers and Health Supervisors (Male & Female) Service Rules, 1997, wherein a clear cut provision has been provided for prescribing the age for recruitment of a direct candidate, in view of this, special appeal is liable to be dismissed. After respective arguments have been advanced the factual situation that is so emerging that Uttar Pradesh Medical Health & Family Welfare Department Health Workers and Health Supervisors (Male & Female) Service Rules, 1997 has been framed by His Excellency the Governor in exercise of powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and as per the same part III deals with the recruitment wherein Rule 5 provides that recruitment to the various categories of posts in the service shall be made from the following sources: "(1) Health Worker (Male).- By Direct Recruitment through the Commission from amongst such male candidates who have successfully completed one year basic health worker training course conducted by departmental divisional training centers (previously known as Regional Health and Family Welfare Training Centres) of the State: (2) Health Worker (Female).- By Direct Recruitment through the Commission from amongst such female candidates who have successfully completed one year and a half year basic mahila health worker training course (including six months training related to deliveries) conducted by Uttar Pradesh Nurses and Midwives Council Lucknow and who are duly registered in the Uttar Pradesh Nurses and Midwives Council, Lucknow. Note - Health Workers (Male) and Health Workers (Female) who have successfully completed prescribed training of Basic Health Workers (Male) and (Female) on or before commencement of these Rules shall be considered for appointment first in order of batchwise seniority arranged on the basis of marks obtained by them in the training. The Commission shall not hold any recruitment under these rules unless all such who are willing to join the Service, have been considered for appointment." A bare perusal of the rules, quoted above, would go to show that for the purposes of being appointed as Health Worker (Male) an incumbent is required to have completed one year basic health worker training course conducted by departmental divisional training centers (previously known as Regional Health and Family Welfare Training Centres) of the State. Thus acquirement of training course by departmental divisional training centers is a condition precedent for being offered appointment and for being treated eligible. Thus acquirement of training course by departmental divisional training centers is a condition precedent for being offered appointment and for being treated eligible. Thus it is clear that under the scheme of things provided for in reference of Health Workers (Male) and Health Workers (Female) who have successfully completed prescribed training of Basic Health Workers (Male) and (Female) on or before commencement of these Rules shall be considered for appointment first in order of batchwise seniority arranged on the basis of marks obtained by them in the training and there is further embargo that Commission shall not hold any recruitment under these rules unless all such who are willing to join the Service, have been considered for appointment after the enforcement of the rules in question. Rule 10 of 1997 Rules read alongwith amended 1998 Rules provided for minimum as well as maximum age for entering into service. Maximum age prescribed for general category candidate is 35 years and relaxation of 5 years is admissible for reserve category candidate and, as such, maximum age prescribed for reserve category candidate is 40 years. In the present case, this much is reflected that an advertisement has been published by the department concerned in the year 1998 and 2001 for selection/adjustment of Health Worker (Male) and, at the said point of time, petitioner appellant has proceeded not to apply for consideration of his candidature in pursuance of the said advertisement in question within the time frame provided for and the net effect of the same is that his candidature in question has not been considered, at the said point of time. This much is also reflected that thereafter another advertisement in question has been published on 16.4.2010 and therein the petitioner appellant, in his turn, has proceeded to make an application and then his candidature in question has non-suited on the ground that he is overage. Petitioner appellant's entire emphasis is that there is no age bar in reference of appointment in question and the said age bar is in reference of training. Petitioner appellant's entire emphasis is that there is no age bar in reference of appointment in question and the said age bar is in reference of training. Petitioner appellant is labouring under misconception, inasmuch as, the age bar is clearly relatable in the matter of recruitment when the matter is to be taken by way of direct recruitment and admittedly, in the present case, this much is accepted that petitioner appellant has crossed the age limit, that has been provided for, in view of this, the opinion, that has been formed by the authority concerned as well as the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference by us. As of now petitioner appellant is 53 years of age and he cannot claim appointment as a matter of right and for valid reasons same can be denuded. Here for valid reasons claim of petitioner appellant has been non-suited. Special appeal sans merit and same is dismissed, accordingly.