Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 74 (UTT)

Jeet Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

2019-02-13

R.C.KHULBE, RAMESH RANGANATHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. J.C. Pandey, learned Brief Holder for the State and Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Counsel for the Public Service Commission. 2. The petitioner, an ex-serviceman and a member of the scheduled castes, applied for appointment to the post of Vice Principal in the Government Intermediate College in the State of Uttarakhand, pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.3.2011. He secured 812.0142 marks, and yet the fourth respondent, who was also an ex-serviceman and a member of the scheduled castes, was selected, for appointment to the said post, by the Public Service Commission, though he had secured lesser marks i.e. 802.6228. When the petitioner enquired as to how a person who secured lesser marks than him was selected, he was informed that he was denied appointment because he was overaged. The petitioner was, admittedly, more that 42 years of age on the prescribed cut-off date. 3. The advertisement, issued by the Public Service Commission on 11.3.2011, stipulated the age limit in Clause 9 thereof. Clause 9.1 stipulated that the candidate should complete at least 21 years of age on 1st July, 2011 and should not be above 35 years, meaning thereby that his/her birth should not be after 1.7.1990 and before 2.7.1976. The petitioner’s date of birth is 13.4.1969 and was much before 2.7.1976. Clause 9.2 of the advertisement provided for relaxation in the Upper Age Limit. Clause 9.2 (a) provided that, as per G.O. dated 21.5.2005, 5 years’ relaxation shall be admissible to candidates belonging to the Uttarakhand Scheduled Castes/Uttarakhand Scheduled Tribes/Uttarakhand Other Backward Classes. Clause 9.2(c) stipulated that, for Group ‘B’ and Subordinate Gazetted posts, 5 years’ relaxation shall be admissible in upper age limit to ex-servicemen of Uttarakhand who had served for 5 years in Indian Army/Navy/ Air Force. 4. Clause 9.2(c) stipulated that, for Group ‘B’ and Subordinate Gazetted posts, 5 years’ relaxation shall be admissible in upper age limit to ex-servicemen of Uttarakhand who had served for 5 years in Indian Army/Navy/ Air Force. 4. While both sub-clauses (a) and (c) of Clause 9.2 of the advertisement provided for five years’ relaxation in the upper age limit for scheduled castes and ex-servicemen, the petitioner claims that, since he is an ex-serviceman and a member of the scheduled castes, he is entitled for relaxation of upper age limit of five years under each category, i.e. relaxation in the upper age limit of 10 years; and, if this 10 years’ relaxation is added to the upper age limit of 35 years, all scheduled caste ex-servicemen, shall be eligible to be considered for appointment to the advertised post, if they are below 45 years in age. 5. The stand of the Public Service Commission, on the other hand, is that the upper age limit is only five years, be it for members of scheduled castes or for ex-serviceman; and that an ex-serviceman, belonging to scheduled caste category, is not entitled for relaxation of upper age limit beyond five years, much less upto 10 years. 6. Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, would rely on a subsequent advertisement issued by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, the office memorandum issued by the Govt. of India dated 27.3.2012, the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court in ‘Inderjit Singh v. State of Haryana’ 2014(2) SCT 474, and the Division Bench judgment of the Karnataka High Court, in ‘State of Karnataka v. K. Srinivasulu’ 2003 (7) KantLJ 115, to contend that the petitioner is entitled for relaxation of the upper age limit upto 10 years (i.e. five years under the Scheduled Caste Category plus five years under the ex-servicemen category). 7. As noted hereinabove, both sub-clauses (a) and (c) of Clause 9.2 of the advertisement provide for relaxation of five years, the former to members of the scheduled castes, and the later to ex-servicemen. The question which necessitates examination is whether an ex-serviceman, belonging to the scheduled caste category, is entitled to claim the benefit of relaxation in the upper age limit under both these Clauses i.e., for a total period of 10 years? A bare perusal of sub-clause (e) of Clause 9.2 would negate this contention urged on behalf of the petitioner. The question which necessitates examination is whether an ex-serviceman, belonging to the scheduled caste category, is entitled to claim the benefit of relaxation in the upper age limit under both these Clauses i.e., for a total period of 10 years? A bare perusal of sub-clause (e) of Clause 9.2 would negate this contention urged on behalf of the petitioner. Clause 9.2(e) stipulates that the upper age limit shall be 50 years for candidates who have undergone seven days or less imprisonment during the Uttarakhand State Agitation. If the Public Service Commission had intended to grant relaxation of 10 years for an ex-serviceman who is also a member of the scheduled castes, nothing prevented it from so stipulating, like it did in favour of candidates falling within the ambit of Sub-clause (e) of Clause 9.2 of the advertisement. 8. The submission of Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that, in the absence of a bar in the said advertisement, this Court should direct relaxation of the upper age limit for a scheduled caste ex-serviceman of upto 10 years i.e. 5 years under each of these categories. We must express our inability to agree. The advertisement contains an implicit bar of relaxation of the upper age limit beyond 5 years under sub-clauses (a) and (c) of Clause 9.2. The very fact that the Commission has chosen to provide an upper age limit of 50 years (i.e. a relaxation of 15 years in the prescribed upper age limit of 35 years) only to persons who had undergone seven days or less imprisonment during Uttarakhand State Agitation, would negate this contention urged on behalf of the petitioner. Clause 9.2(e) of the advertisement makes it clear that, if the Public Service Commission intended to give the benefit of 10 years’ relaxation of the upper age limit for members of scheduled caste falling under the ex-servicemen category, it would have so specified, as it did in Clause 9.2(e). 9. Reliance placed by Shri Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the Office Memorandum dated 27.3.2012 of the Govt. of India is also misplaced. The said office memorandum specifically provides for relaxation in the upper age limit to central government servants only for recruitment to various categories of posts under the Central Government. 9. Reliance placed by Shri Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the Office Memorandum dated 27.3.2012 of the Govt. of India is also misplaced. The said office memorandum specifically provides for relaxation in the upper age limit to central government servants only for recruitment to various categories of posts under the Central Government. The advertisement, in the present case, is not for recruitment to posts under the Central Government, but for various posts under the Govt. of Uttarakhand. 10. Reliance placed by Shri Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioner, on a subsequent advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission is also of no avail. The mere fact that the Public Service Commission has later considered it appropriate to provide a higher upper age limit for certain categories of persons, would not justify such relaxation being read into an earlier advertisement, more so when the said advertisement does not specifically provide for any such upper age relaxation beyond five years. 11. Reliance placed by Shri Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioner, on the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in ‘Inderjit Singh v. State of Haryana’ 2014(2) SCT 474, is also of no avail. In the said judgment, a Learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court has held that, in the absence of a bar in the advertisement, an expansive meaning deserves to be given in the peculiar facts of the case in order to find a practical workable solution. In the said case, relaxation of age was granted for the period during which the employee therein had rendered military service. 12. While we must express our inability to agree with the view taken by learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court that an expansive meaning should be given, it is unnecessary for us to dwell on this aspect any further, since the learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court had rendered his opinion ‘in the peculiar facts of the case, in order to find a practical workable solution’. The aforesaid judgment cannot be construed as a declaration of law having even a persuasive value on another High Court. 13. The judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in ‘State of Karnataka v. K. Srinivasulu’ 2003(7) KantLJ 115 is also of no assistance to the petitioner herein. The aforesaid judgment cannot be construed as a declaration of law having even a persuasive value on another High Court. 13. The judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in ‘State of Karnataka v. K. Srinivasulu’ 2003(7) KantLJ 115 is also of no assistance to the petitioner herein. In the said case, the notification stipulated a lower level of physical efficiency test where the age limit exceeded 35 years and this stipulation in the notification was considered by the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court, with respect to ex-servicemen, relying on the rules applicable to ex-servicemen, in as much as the notification itself stipulated that the term ‘ex-servicemen’ shall have the same meaning as is defined in the Rules in force. Reliance placed on this judgment is, therefore, misplaced. 14. Since relaxation in the upper age limit, either for ex-servicemen or for members of the scheduled castes, is only for a maximum of 5 years, and the advertisement does not specifically provide an enhanced upper age limit of 45 years or relaxation in the upper age limit by 10 years for an ex-serviceman belonging to the scheduled castes, the respondent-Public Service Commission cannot be faulted in having selected the fourth respondent (also an ex-serviceman belonging to the scheduled caste category), though he secured lesser marks than the petitioner, since he was within the prescribed upper age limit, whereas the petitioner was not. 15. Viewed from any angle, we find no reason to interdict the action taken by the Public Service Commission in selecting the fourth respondent, instead of the petitioner herein, as a Vice-Principal. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Pending application also stands disposed of). No costs.