Rakesh Kumar Namdev Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

WPS No. 1297 of 2014

¶5

Rakesh Kumar Namdev S/o Shri Mangli Prasad Namdev, Aged About 38 Years Occupation Data Entry Operator, R/o Ward No. 13, P.S. And Tahsil Ramanujganj, District Balrampur C.G.

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat Rural Development, Mahanadi - Bhawan Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶9

The Development Commissioner Vikas Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur C.G.

¶10

The Chief Engineer Rural Engineering Service, Vikash Bhawan, Raipur C.G.

¶11

The Superintending Engineer, Rural Engineering Service Surguja Area, District Surguja C.G.

¶12

The Executive Engineer Rural Engineering Service, Division Balrampur C.G.

¶13

Rajesh Das, S/o Heeran Das, Aged about 27 Years, R/o Village Mankepi, Post Kamari, P.S. and Tahsil Shankargarh, Civil and Revenue District Balrampur, C.G.

¶14

---- Respondents

¶15

For Petitioner :	Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate with Ms. Prakriti Deo, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 to5/State :	Ms. Anuradha Jain, PL
For Respondent No.6 :	Ms. Chetna Sharma, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri R.S. Baghel, Advocate

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

Order

25/04/2024

Heard.

Challenge in the present petition is to the legality and validity of the order dated 24/02/2014 whereby the services of the petitioner were dispensed on the ground that the job obtained by the petitioner de hors

¶21

2

¶22

the Rule 8 (d) (ii) of the Chhattisgarh Development Commissioner Panchayat and Rural Development, Class-III (Ministerial and NonMinisterial) Services Recruitment Rules, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2011) because as per the advertisement issued for appointment on 01/01/2013 he was aged about 36 Years and 06 Months and the caping of the age was to the maximum of 35 years. Therefore, the appointment de hors the rules against the terms of advertisement.

¶23

The petitioner contends that he was initially appointed on 24/02/2009 to discharge the work of computer operator in the Rural Engineering Services under the C.G. Panchayat and Rural Development Department considering the nature of job as there was a need felt. While he was doing his job an advertisement was made for recruitment from the office of Panchayat and Rural Development on 06/03/2012 vide Annexure P/3 and one of the conditions of the appointment was in the Clause 6 of the advertisement is reproduced hereinbelow:-

¶24

6- vukjf{kr oxZ mEehnokjksa ds ekeys esa vk;q lhek 01 tuojh] 2013 dh frfFk dks U;wure vk;q 18 o”kZ ,oa vf/kdre 35 o”kZ gksxhA vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr] vU; fiNM+k oxZ ,oa efgyk mEehnokjksa dks fu;ekuqlkj vk;q lhek esa NwV nh tkosxhA lafonk esa dk;Zjr~ mEehnokjksa dks fu/kkZfjr vf/kdre~ vk;q lhek esa mrus o”kZ dh NwV nh tkosxh] ftrus o”kZ mlus lafonk ds :i esa lsok dh gSA ;g NwV vf/kdre 38 o”kZ dh vk;q lhek rd jgsxhA vk;q lhek ds laca/k esa Nrrhlx<+ ‘kklu] lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx }kjk le;≤ ij tkjh fn’kk&funsZ’k ykxw gksaxsA

¶25

It is further contended that the petitioner was working in the department and initially was a contingency paid employee was entitled to get a relaxation as per the circular of the State dated 30/01/2012 (Annexure P/10) which reads as under:-

¶26

3

¶27

NRrhlx<+ 'kklu lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx ea=ky; nkÅ dY;k.k flag Hkou] jk;iqj 492001

¶28

Øekad ,Q&3&2@2000@1&3 jk;iqj] fnukad 30@01@2012

¶29

izfr]

¶30

’kklu ds leLr foHkkx v/;{k] jktLo eaMy] NRrhlx<+] fcykliqj leLr foHkkxk/;{k] leLr laHkkxk;qDr] leLr dysDVlZ] leLr eq[; dk;Ziky vf/kdkjh ¼ftyk iapk;r½ NRrhlx<+A

¶31

fo"k;%&o"kZ 2011 dh NRrhlx<+ yksd lsok vk;ksx }kjk vk;ksftr ijh{kk gsrq jkT; 'kklu dh lsokvksa ds fofHkUu inksa ij HkrhZ ds fy, fu/kkZfjr vf/kdre vk;qlhek esa NwVA lanHkZ%&bl foHkkx dk lela[;d ifji= fnukad 15 twu] 2010

¶32

&&&00&&&

¶33

mi;qZDr fo"k;kUrxZr lanfHkZr ifji= }kjk jkT; 'kklu dh lsokvksa esa lh/kh Hkjrh ls Hkjs tkus okys inksa ds fy, vf/kdre vk;qlhek 30 o"kZ ,oa LFkkuh; fuokfl;ksa ds fy, 35 o"kZ fu/kkZfjr gSA

¶34

2@ NRrhlx<+ jkT; yksd lsok vk;ksx }kjk foxr o"kksZ esa jkT; lsok dh fofHkUu ijh{kk,a fu;fer :i ls vk;ksftr ugha dh tk ldh FkhaA bl rF; dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq,] o"kZ 2011 dh NRrhlx<+ yksd lsok vk;ksx ijh{kk gsrq jkT; 'kklu dh lsokvksa ds fofHkUu inksa ij HkrhZ gsrq LFkkuh; fuoklh vkosndksa ds fy, fu/kkZfjr vf/kdre vk;qlhek 35 o"kZ esa 03 o"kZ dh NwV iznku dh tk,A

¶35

3@ ;g NqV iqfyl cy dh HkrhZ ds fy, ykxw ugha gksxhA

¶36

NRrhlx<+ ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns’kkuqlkj

¶37

lgh@& ¼,e-ds-R;kxh½ fo’ks"k lfpo NRrhlx<+ 'kklu] lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx

¶38

It is further contended that as per Rule 8 (d) (ii) of the Rules, 2011 a candidate holding a post temporarily and applying for another post should not be more than 38 years of age and the concession shall also be admissible to the contingency employees, work charge employees and employees working in the project implementing committees.

¶39

4

¶40

Relevant part of the Rule 8 (d) (ii) is reproduced hereinunder:-

¶41

Conditions of Eligibility for Direct Recruitment – In order to be eligible to compete/selection at the examination, candidate must satisfy the following conditions, namely :-

¶42

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

¶43

(d) The upper age limit shall also be relaxable in respect of candidates who are or have been employees of the Chhattisgarh Government to the extent and subject to the conditions specified below :-

¶44

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

¶45

(ii) A candidate holding a post temporarily and applying for another post should not be more than 38 years of age. This concession shall also be admissible to the contingency employees, work charge employees and employees working in the project implementing committees;

¶46

xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx

¶47

It is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the status of the petitioner was enquired by the department itself and by letter dated 03/10/2013 (Annexure P/7) it was affirmed by the Executive Engineer, Rural Engineering Services, Division Balrampur, District BalrampurRamanujganj, C.G. that the petitioner was working as Data Entry Operator in contigency. He would further submit that therefore, the petitioner since on the date on 01/01/2013 was aged about 36 & ½ years, he was entitled for relaxation and on this count that he was over age on that date, his services cannot be dispensed with. It is stated further the rules of probation were not followed but the services were directed to be dispensed with on the other ground.

¶48

5

¶49

Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the petitioner was working as a daily wager which would be evident from the documents i.e. appointment letter Annexure P/2 and Annexure P/12 & P/13. She would further submit that the relaxation of three years by letter dated 30/01/2012 (Annexure P/10) was only granted to the candidates who were to appear for the PSC and not to the other streams and since the appointment of the petitioner was done by the selection committee as such this relaxation as granted by letter dated 30/01/2012 cannot be granted to the petitioner. She would further submit that the Rules, 2011 since the petitioner was only a daily wager and the nature of payment would show that the payment was made in the Collector Rate, it cannot be assumed that he was appointed as a contingency paid employee, therefore, the order of the State is justified.

¶50

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents.

¶51

The appointment of the petitioner was made by order dated 24/02/2009 (Annexure P/2). Reading of Annexure P/2 reflects that in order to discharge the work of Computer for the reason that all the official work were computerized and were online, his work was found to be suitable, as such the petitioner was appointed initially on daily wages. While he was in the job, an advertisement was published on 06/03/2012 by the Panchayat and Rural Development Department wherein one of the condition was that on 01/01/2013 the minimum age of the candidate should be 18 years and maximum age should be 35 Years. Further the added qualification that in respect of the relaxation of age the direction issued by the General Administration from time to time would be

¶52

6

¶53

applicable.

¶54

The submission of the petitioner that on 30/01/2012 (Annexure P/10) three years relaxation was granted for the reason that no exams were conducted as such relaxation of addition three years was granted prima facie appears to be applicable to the candidates who want to appear for PSC, however, Rule 8 (d) (ii) of the Rules, 2011 which purports that a candidate holding a post temporarily and applying for another should not be more than 38 years of age, this relaxation was further extended to the employees of contingency work charged and employees working in project implementing committees.

¶55

The petitioner was appointed on 24/02/2009 and the documents Annexure P/12 & P/13 about the payment shows that the payment was made like dailywagers. By the said payment the status of the petitioner could not be ascertained. However, on a complaint when the enquiry was made, the State officials on 03/10/2013 (Annexure P/7) affirmed the fact that the services of Rakesh Kumar Namdev, Data Entry Operator was as contingency worker. Going back to the Rule 8 (d) (ii) of the Rules, 2011 would show that the status of the petitioner was even otherwise covered by it, inasmuch as, either he may be said to be holding the post temporarily or it was affirmed that he was stated to be the contingency paid employee to whom the relaxation up to 38 years was extended. There is no reason as to why the Annexure P/7 to be disbelieved as it is by the State machinery itself and after due enquiry it was affirmed that the petitioner was working as a contingency paid employee on such date of advertisement. In such circumstance, the

¶56

7

¶57

petitioner when applied for a job as per the advertisement dated 06/03/2012 (Annexure P/3) on 01/01/2013 he was below 38 years and was aged about 36 & ½ years thereby eligible to offer his candidature as per advertisement. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order dated 24/02/2014 Annexure P/1 is quashed. Since the petitioner is already continuing his job by a protective order passed by this Court he would be at liberty to continue the same.

¶58

Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

¶59

SD/Goutam Bhaduri Judge

¶60

Ashu

Rakesh Kumar Namdev v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar Namdev v. State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

I.s.chandrakar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Rakhi Pandey Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Preetam Kewat And Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Ravilal Bagh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Guruvindar @ Guruvindar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pritam Singh Baghel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.