Allowed

Snehlata Soni v. State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC12 Jul 2013WA/1165/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench addressed three appeals challenging the rejection of candidatures for ANM courses. The court interpreted Rule 5 of the 2011 Rules, holding that candidates qualify for the maximum available age relaxations stacking benefits for being in service and specific categories like SC/OBC or divorcee, rather than being restricted to one.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeals allowed; order rejecting candidature was set aside; respondents directed not to reject candidature on age grounds in future advertisements.

Snehlata Soni Vs State Of Chhattisgarh… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2013)

¶1

Dlvlsion B©£~

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

WRIT AFFEAL (C) N0. U6<T /20ia

¶4

ARISING OUT OF W.P. (C) N0.2037/2012

¶5

Snehlata Soni, w/o Shri Shyamsunder Soni, aged about 37 years, at Primary Health presently posted Center, Chichola, Block Churiya, District Rajnandgaon (CG). Police Station - Dongargaon.

¶6

APPELLANT (PETITIONER)

¶7

....--••"^"^.•'f^J"'^. ^—-^^^^

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS

RESPONDENT N0.1

State of Chhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, DKS Bhawan, Manfcralaya, Raipur (CG)

¶12

RESPONDENT N0.2 2. The Director, Directorate of Health Services, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

RESPONDENT N0.3

¶14

Chief Medical and Health Officer, Rajnandgaon (CG).

¶15

*s^y

¶16

APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(1) OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH ICOURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006

^fesa.^

^^ff
v ^

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI YATINDRA SINGH, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.

¶22

WritAppeal No. 1163 of 2012

¶23

Appellant Geeta Verma Petitioner

¶24

VERSUS

¶25

Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and others

¶26

WritAppeal No. 1164 of 2012

¶27

Appellant Savita Jaamulkar Petitioner

¶28

VERSUS

¶29

Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and others

¶30

WritAppeal No. 1165 of 2012

¶31

Appellant Snehlata Soni Petitioner

¶32

VERSUS

¶33

Respondents State of Chhattisgarh and others

¶34

Writ Appeals under Section 2C) ofthe Chhattisaarh Hiah Court fAppeal to DivisionBench) Act. 2006

¶35

Appearance: Shri Rahul Tamaskar, counsel for the Appellants. Shri Praveen Das, Deputy Government Advocate, for the State/ Respondents.

¶36

JUDGENIENT (12th July, 2013)

¶37

These appeals revolve around interpretation of rule 5 of Chhattisgarh Women Multipurpose Health Welfare (ANM) Courses Admission Rules, 2011 (the Rules) and the main point involved is,

¶38

'Whether a candidate is entitled to either of age relaxation

¶39

mentioned under sub-rule (3) of rule 5 {5(3)} of the Rules and the Explanation to rule 5(3) or all ofthem.'

¶40

It arises in these writ appeals against the consolidated order of the single judge dated 26.11.2012^dismissing the writ petitions filed by Ms Geeta

¶41

""^;-.. ,.;'i6t;i;^;; "'i^. •"'"M"i"v% "^' ^ti '»„>'i;;'^^>.. ' " 9 .-.rf'

¶42

¶43

Verma, Ms Savita Jaamulkar and Ms Snehlata Soni (referred to as the .Appellants).

¶44

THE FACTS

¶45

The Director, Directorate of Health Services, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (the Director) published an advertisement on 17.07.2012 for admission in Auxiliary Nurses and Midwifery Course (the ANM course). The Appellants applied for the same.

¶46

Ms. Geeta Verma is Mitanin ie Accredited Social Health Activist (ASHA); whereas, Ms. Snehlata Soni and Ms. Savita Jaamulkar are class-IV employees working in the office of Chief Medical and Health Officer, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (the CMO). They are respectively divorcee, SC, and OBC candidates and were aged about 36, 38 and 37 years on 31.07.2012, namely, the year of the advertisement.

¶47

The CMO rejected thecandidature of the Appellants on 19.10.2012 on the ground that they were only entitled to age relaxation of five yeare as they were in service and were not entitled to age relaxation on any other ground mentioned in the Explanation to mle 5(3) of the Rules.

¶48

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Appellants filed Writ Petitions (C)-2039 of 2012, 2036 of 2012 and 2037 of 2012. They were dismissed by the single judge by a consolidated order dated 26.11.2012. Hence, the present three writ appeals.

¶49

THE DECISION

¶50

We have heard counsel for the parties.

¶51

Entitled to AII Relaxations

¶52

Rule 5 of the Rules is titled 'Patrata' (eligibility) (see Appendix-1) and also provides minimum and maximum age of the candidates. Under mle 5 of the Rules, a candidate, who is an Indian citizen and has completed atleast 17 years of age, is eligible for admission in the ANM course.

¶53

'•f 'Slit-.j' '::3W,. iK! n tli'~.•"..; t!"""E;.

¶54

¶55

Rule 5(3) of the Rules also provides the maximum age of the candidate as 30 years on 31st July of the year of advertisement. It along with sub-clauses of its Explanation provides relaxation in the maximum age of a candidate.

¶56

Rule 5(3) of the Rules provides the age relaxation at three places—oneis in the main mle 5(3); and two are in the sub-clauses of the Explanation to rule 5(3):

¶57

The main rule 5(3) provides relaxation of five years for candidate jn service;

¶58

Explanation-2 of rule 5(3) provides five years relaxation in case of SC, ST, and OBC candidates;

¶59

Explanation-4 of rule 5(3) provides five years age relaxation in case ofwidows and divorcees.

¶60

The Appellants were undoubtedly aged between 35-40 years on 31.07.2012 and the State has given a benefit offive years to them under njle 5(3) of the Rules being in service. There is no dispute about this, but the dispute is whether the Appellants are further entitled to age relaxation mentioned in the Explanation to rute 5(3) or not.

¶61

According to the State,

¶62

Out of the three relaxations mentioned in rule 5(3) and its Explanation, only one could be availed of by a candidate;

¶63

The Appellants have availed the benefit of relaxation of five years of being in service;

¶64

They were not entitled to any other relaxation mentioned in the Explanation to rule 5(3);

¶65

They could take benefit of the age relaxation under the Explanation to ruje 5(3) only if they had not got age relaxation under rule 5(3) onhe^ulgs^

¶66

lii'ii'll T,:i ]:

¶67

T'f^Sa^;

¶68

v^' ."^sl W>3:£a'! ^••cdV ^^s@^

¶69

According to the counsel for the Appellants:

¶70

A candidate is entitled to the benefit not only of the relaxation under rule 5(3), but is further entitled to relaxation if she qualifies under any provision ofthe Explanation;

¶71

Ms. Geeta Verma is a divorcee and she was further entitled to relaxation under Explanation-4 to rule 5(3);

¶72

Ms. Savita Jaamulkar and Ms. Snehlata Soni are SC and OBC

¶73

candidates. They are further entitled to relaxation of five years under Explanation-2 to mle 5(3).

¶74

The Rules do not clearly provide answer to the submissions raised by the parties. They are unlike the rules providing maximum age as is in Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Special Provision for Appointment of Women) Rules, 1997 (the 1997-Rules).

¶75

In the 1997-Rules, the maximum age for the appointment after giving all relaxations is also provided as 45 years. Had this kind of provision there in the Rules or specific clause that a candidate is entitled to age relaxation only once, then the matter would have been simple. However, in absence of the same, let us consider the reasons for providing age relaxation.

¶76

Sub-rule(5) of rule 5 {5(5)} of the Rules is titled 'Sewarat Abhyarthi Ke liye Atirikt Avashyak Yogyata' (Additional qualification for the person already in service). Sub-clause (2) of rule 5(5) {5(5)(2)} of the Rules provides that a candidate should have completed atleast five years of service. .It is for this reason, that the candidates in service are given five years age relaxation. This is given irrespective of their status.

¶77

The candidates falling in SC, ST, OBC categories, or divorcees, or widows are given special privilege including benefit of age relaxation, considering their status in the society. SC, ST and OBC are downtrodden classes and special efforts are necessary to uplift them. So Js.the case of widows and divorcees. They also require special

¶78

Ate

¶79

protection; they should be financially independent and stand on their own ^-feet;lest they fall to evil design ofthe society.

¶80

In case no benefits are given to the downtrodden, widows, and divorcees, then they will fall in same class as others. It is permissible but the provision should cleariy state so. In case of any doubt, benefit may be given to them as they need special protection.

¶81

Considering the above aspect, it would be unfair to restrict the advantage of age relaxation to one category. In our opinion, the candidate is entitled to all age relaxation if she falls in more than one category of age relaxation.

¶82

It is relevant to point out that in other writ petitions in which the grievance was the same, namely, Writ Petition (C)-7100, 7102, 7103 and 7582 of 2011, the State had filed its reply. In paragraphs 4 and 7 they had reptied that if a candidate falls into more than one category, then she is entitled to all retaxations mentioned therein. The State has also understood the Rules in the same way as we have interpreted them. It beties to our imagination as to how the State after understanding the rules apptying the same in other cases, is not applying the same in these cases.

¶83

In our opinion,

¶84

The candidate is entitled to alt age relaxations, if she qualifies for relaxation under mle 5(3) pr any clause of its Explanation;

¶85

The candidature of the Appellants was wrongly rejected.

¶86

Relief Granted

¶87

The Appellants had applied for the ANM course in pureuance of the advertisement dated 17.07.2012. We are informed that this course is of two years and one year period has already compteted. In view of this, the Appellants cannot be admitted in this course. Then, the question is, .. - wffat relief should be granted to them.

¶88

[w 'i i'r

¶89

.-;. ''-sa«'l!i,. :?':''r"na.,y?.,'f.S, '%-E .^ B •3& ''"'a^

¶90

¶91

According to the Respondents, the Director invites applications every year and fresh advertisement is likely to be published soon. We make it clear that in case the Appellants apply in the next advertisement, then their candidature will not be rej'ected on the ground ofage.

¶92

AN OBSERVATION

¶93

It is relevant to point out that the 1997-Rules relates to appointment ofwomen in service. It gives relaxation under different heads. TheState itself has provided the maximum limit for the age relaxation. The State wi!l be well advised to do same in this case or darify the Rules so that unnecessary litigation is avoided.

¶94

CONCLUSIONS

¶95

Our conclusions are as follows:

¶96

The Appellants are entitled to benefrt of different relaxations provided under the Rules;

¶97

The order dated 19.10.2012 rejecting their candidature was illegal;

¶98

The Appellants may apply in the next advertisement for admission in the ANM course and their candidature shalt not be rejected merely on the ground of age.

¶99

In view of our conclusions, the writ appeals are allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.

Sd/-

Chief Justice

subbu

^-Tiffira"^"

-^^

.•^"'^^cs..... f'Cfi

Appendix-1

^-Rule 5 ofthe Chhattisgarti Women Multipurpose Heatth Welfare (ANM) Courses Admission Rutes, 2011 is as foltows:

¶108

^. (TPRn" :- ^^T ^" sn^ff q?r g^r T^STT ^ f^STT^T ^^- ^)- qFRfT gMt 3Jt :- (l) ^TOT W ^ll^lRcb gf.

¶109

(2) e>Tfl<f<lti W ^T f^Rfr' STERT ^? T^T f^^ff- ^.

¶110

(3) 3fT3 ^frRT :- ?. ?yRpr sn^- ^ sp'^Nf 5T^T ^ tn^- ^fTf TSl^ T^TT ^f §7 ^? ^nf ^t" •^fd^ ^0 ^- ^t STT^ 'pf ^C ?fr ^. ^. dff^l+d^ 3fT5- ^ spczrsff g^r ^ ITT5T ^frtPi^ rT^W ^f ^h ^ ^eTTf ^t- srf^KFT ^O ^Tfyf ^7 ?fr ^. ^. NR?T 3p?Nf ^ f^- sn^-^frm- ir qfq- qrf ^ ^? ?w.

¶111

t*1ctlltl<"l :- ?. pT Pl'44)' ^ SF^pf^- ^t?T ^ ^TcPT an^ ?\s ^ ?rqr 3rf^)H7T sn^ ^o q^ f^SlffeT t. ^. 3<iqTcl<l 3TTf^T, 3l1,<ipl(l i)rl"flRl, 3f7iT ft8?T ^f ^ 3mT ff q?T 3fT^ ^fNr TT Pi<<tii'i<)i< ^ ^f ^f ss'^t' srTi^fr. ^. 3n^ y^iif&id ^^ ^ ^r^ ^o+^ (ref^r ^ ^NT qr sii^'fl" ^1' ^h ^t srq^r 5F^T !PTruT INT ^T ^W ^f'+fR'i^i ^ m7q' ?N~.

¶112

Y. ^EraT ^- ^R^Tii Trf^rTsri- ^r an^ ^n- ir l^ ETf q^- ^: gW^ HfefT <sf^^!<n<< ^TTW 't>l4cb^[ (4) (T?.1??T.^T.) i(R|ia"l 41c^l*^ if' IT^T ^ f^KT{^ fli9fi)l<<3 3rf?TO:. -

i]|]pipi-!-~r"i'

?o+^ f^RTT creRr ^ Pl^Pld T&?rr ^^f WTT 3€M: 3Tq^T ^Ff)- T^- ^ ^- <)^"5'Q tr^T 3^H ?Nr srf^qr^ ?N~. ^TCPT 3r%r ff ^ s^ ^ P'ldiPt'i sp^Tzff ^ srRf^T ^ft?f ^^ ^TT ^fN P'ldlRrf ^T^{'T?^'} yi^)P'14>dl ^f ;3TTT"ft d^4<icl €t¥ f^T ?? STT^ 7T ^o^f ^BTT ^fN P'ldlft'l Sl^TWTf ^T 5T^T f^TT "ff ^^TT. SFq- ^c)Kd srTsrWT ^ siRcii^ ^rfSr^ qtrsRn- f^pr ^ (•y) ? ^ ST^TR ? .

¶117

(5) <lqi<a srnnff ^ t^ <i|RlR<M <S)iqii<<'» <<1<<<<1I :- f^TR' \ (?) ^ ^W l\ (x) ^ 'dwl^d TT^?rT 9Rff ^ ?tt |^ ^?T ^ <)^Kd ST^NT 5^?T ^ TPT gfTf, f^?^" :- ^.s^r ^ ^ ^o sri^T ^ PiaiRi chi4*+i ^L P'ldiR'i/P'idiR'i RfNw/sRTm^hr fSRrr gt?r arf^r ^ ^T ^r ^o^r ^x 9)T ff^repr ^ ^7 ^PTT ^' ?raT ^fiTFT ^T Pl<1lRl ch|<T?t)t1 ^ ^F'fer ?!'. ^.^11<*4 q^^{4R=11<9^TMf^TPT} ^T wfof ?g^ ^f ^ *4-t|l^ (iTT5T TTli^T ^4^1-Q) ^ (K 'TC ^fT t ^r^ ^ ^f ^T ^ ^ ?!'.

¶118

^.^ f^fr ^RcT STR^ff ^)- ^- ^- f^if)- 4l<sa)**l ir ^|cj|<<^ 3p3T<f ^ ^T ^" fft^T f^TT ^PTT ?!T, cfr <K^ff ^f ^- ff^T ^ ^- qTT ?T€T ?W. 'S-.^' ^TCcT 3W^ff, f^FT^ f^?^ ^f 3)|4<if6|cb srf^T^FT ^rf^T t 3f2RfT 5T)- R^'Rd t SPT^T f^FT^? ^S f^TNt^ 5iN' ^f^T 1 3T2RT f^FT^ f^^ f^?fr ff^TC^{El?'(i"si<-*icbcfii^qi^} q?" »Tt |, 5^T ^ TT^" ^ ?^.

¶119

(6) 3f^<j<si|cb ^twri a^r ^ f?PTTr ^ (?) ^ f^m ^ (v) ?R) yMyiPlcl qt^RTTaft ^? 3)^|R<M Sfrq?r;tt?mpi ^ft PlyTRd ^: ^r^ft. ^ft 5?n- ir ^TW ^ Slf^RT^ ^q- ^- y-^tHch ^ S^ST ^ ^ ^t" ^o

¶120

SI^T ?R? ^fr sfRtRcw q^mrsTi- ^ ^^gr ^ ^rf^cT ^TT ^fr ? . ^fr WTTSrl- ^ ^q-^ ^ ^TTC ^f ^ yi41"^<ir ^ ^ srmrc (K aW f^n"Tp"rT cw chi^Ri(^\i ^n- g^rr t^RT^? ^WE^ ^T?r SHT ^RT ^T ^- ^- 3TTT^ft.

¶121

¶122

$;S?I8i&, ^SS-S^,~iatn'^

'Vh

HEADLINES