Dismissed

Dr. Chaitram Ratre v. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission

Chhattisgarh HC24 Jun 2024WA/245/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Division Bench affirmed the dismissal of a Writ Appeal filed by an Assistant Professor seeking age relaxation. The court held that University officers are not government servants under the relevant Advertisement clause, limiting age relaxation to reserved category resident benefits only.

What did the court decide?

The Writ Appeal is dismissed, and the order dated 10.1.2020 passed in W.P.(S) No.1964 of 2011 is affirmed.

Dr. Chaitram Ratre Vs Chhattisgarh Public… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

-1-

¶2

(W. A. No. 245 of 2020)

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

WRIT APPEAL NO.245 OF 2020

¶6

(Arising out of Order dated 10.1.2020 passed in W.P.(S) No.1964 of 2011)

¶7

1. Dr. Chaitram Ratre, S/o Shri Firturam, aged about 53 years R/o MIG I-355, Sector-1, Pandit Deendayal Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

...Appellant(s)

¶9

Versus

¶10

1. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, through: its Secretary, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2. State of Chhattisgarh, through: the Secretary, General Administration Department, Ministry, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, New Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3. Director, Higher Education Department, Nagarjun P.G. Govt. College of Science Premises, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

...Respondent(s)

¶14

For Appellant	:-	Mr. Alok Kumar
		Dewangan, Advocate.
For Respondent	:-	Mr. Anuroop Panda,
No.1/CGPSC		Advocate, under
		instructions of
		Mr. B.D. Guru,
		Advocate.
For Respondents	:-	Mr. Ankur Kashyap,
No.2 & 3/State		Dy. Govt. Advocate.

¶15

-2-

¶16

(W. A. No. 245 of 2020)

¶17

Division Bench

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal

¶19

Judgment on Board [25.06.2024]

¶20

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶21

1. This Writ Appeal is directed against the Order dated 10.1.2020 whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed W.P.(S) No.1964/2011 filed by Appellant/Petitioner, finding no merits.

¶22

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that learned Single Judge is absolutely unjustified in holding that the Appellant was overage on the date of Advertisement and being the officer of the University, not entitled for the relaxation provided under Clause 4.1.2 of the said Advertisement.

¶23

3. Learned Counsels appearing for the

¶24

respective Respondents, however, support the impugned Order and pray for dismissal of the Writ Appeal.

¶25

-3-

¶26

(W. A. No. 245 of 2020)

¶27

4. We have heard learned counsel for parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶28

5. The Appellant applied for the post of

¶29

Assistant Professor (Geography) in terms of the Advertisement issued on 15.5.2009 in which the maximum age prescribed for the candidates was 32 years. Further, for the candidates who are permanent residents of the State of Chhattisgarh, the age relaxation was 5 years more, prescribing the maximum age limit 37 years instead of 32 years. In addition, for the candidates who, being permanent residents of the State of Chhattisgarh, also belong to a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and Other Backward Classes (non-creamy layer) category, a further 5 years age relaxation on the maximum age limit was prescribed. This made the candidates, who are permanent residents of the State of Chhattisgarh and belong to a

¶30

-4-

¶31

(W. A. No. 245 of 2020)

¶32

reserved category, entitled to get maximum

¶33

age relaxation up to the age of 42 years.

¶34

6. Admittedly, the Appellant belongs to a reserved category and is a resident of Chhattisgarh and on the date of

¶35

Advertisement, the actual age of the Appellant was 42 years, 9 months & 1 day. The Appellant claimed that being the officer

¶36

of Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University,

¶37

Raipur, as per Clause 4.1.2 of the Advertisement, he was also entitled for relaxation of 01 year prescribed for a government employee. However, learned Single Judge did not accept the claim of the Appellant/Petitioner and proceeded to dismiss his Writ Petition by the impugned Order which is under challenge in the present Writ Appeal.

¶38

7. A careful perusal of Clause 4.1.2 of the Advertisement would show that a government servant, either permanent or temporary,

¶39

-5-

¶40

(W. A. No. 245 of 2020)

¶41

working in the State of Chhattisgarh, would

¶42

be entitled for additional 01 year age relaxation, i.e., up to 38 years. However,

¶43

the said Clause neither impliedly nor expressly included the officers of the University, which cannot be said to be a government establishment for any purpose. Hence, learned Single Judge has rightly accepted that the officers of the University would not cover under Clause 4.1.2 of the Advertisement and they would not be termed as government servant within the meaning of the said Clause and therefore restricted the

¶44

claim of the Appellant up to the maximum age relaxation of 42 years by virtue of his being a permanent resident of the State of Chhattisgarh and a member of reserved category, which the Appellant had already crossed on the date of Advertisement.

¶45

8. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we do not

¶46

find any error or illegality in the impugned

¶47

Order passed by learned Single Judge

¶48

-6-

¶49

(W. A. No. 245 of 2020)

¶50

warranting our interference, which deserves to be and is hereby affirmed.

¶51

9. The Writ Appeal, accordingly, stands

¶52

dismissed.

¶53

10. No order as to cost(s).

¶54

Sd/- Sd/-

¶55

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Agrawal) sharad Judge Judge

Dr. Chaitram Ratre v. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Chaitram Ratre v. Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivlal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Kaushilya Bai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Devsingh Porte Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhavsingh Nishad Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nandpyala Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Govind Vaishnav Vs State of Chhattisgarh