Quashed

Kaushal Kumar Sahu, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Recruitment – Age Limit

Chhattisgarh HC10 Dec 2024WPS/2523/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for the post of Training Officer on age grounds. The Court held that the specific age cap of 38 years for state employees is subject to statutory age relaxation for OBC candidates, rendering the rejection legally unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Candidature rejection quashed; respondents directed to consider petitioner's claim for appointment.

Kaushal Kumar Sahu, Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH

¶3

2024:CGHC:48947

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

WPS No. 2523 of 2024

¶7

1 - Kaushal Kumar Sahu, S/o Shri Panna Lal Sahu, Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Kopra, District Gariyabandh Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Petitioner(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Technical Education, Government Of Chhattisgarh, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin Code -492002.

¶11

2 - Directorate Of Employment And Training, Through Director, Employment And Training, Indravati Bhawan, Block-04, First Floor, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Pin Code -492002.

¶12

3 - Director, Employment And Training, Directorate Of Employment And Training, Indravati Bhawan, Block -04, First Floor, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin Code -492002.

¶13

4 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Though Chairman, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block Sector- 19, Atal Nagar, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin Code -492001.

¶14

5 - Controller, Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, Vyapam Bhawan, North Block, Sector -19, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Pin Code -492001

¶15

---- Respondents

¶16

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶17

For Petitioners : Mr. K. Rohan, Advocate For State : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. G.A. For Vyapam : Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶19

Order on Board

¶20

1 1.12.2024

¶21

In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the rejection of his

¶22

candidature by the Director, Employment and Training, New Raipur, Atal

¶23

¶24

Nagar. The candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has crossed 38 years of age and is not eligible in light of Clause 5 (ii) of the advertisement.

¶25

The facts of the present case are that respondent No.2 issued an advertisement on 05.05.2023 for recruitment to the post of Training Officer in 23 streams. The petitioner submitted his application form as he had the requisite qualification for the advertised post, thereafter, the petitioner participated in the written examination. The result was declared and the petitioner was in the list of successful candidate. The petitioner was called for verification of the documents and the list of required documents was also appended to the call letter. The petitioner appeared before the respondent authorities for verification of the documents. The petitioner belongs to the ‘Other Backward Class (Non-creamy Layer). Despite verification of documents, the respondent authorities have not issued appointment orders in favour of the petitioner on the ground that at the time of submission of application form, the age of the petitioner was 43 years and according to one of the conditions i.e. condition No. 5(ii), he was overage.

¶26

Mr. K. Rohan, counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner is the permanent residents of Chhattisgarh; he belongs to the OBC (Non-creamy layer) category, and at the time of submission of the application form, his age was 43 years. He further submitted that according to clause 5 of the advertisement, the age limit for a permanent resident of the State of Chhattisgarh was 18 years to 40 years. He also submitted that according to clause 5(i), the aspirants of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and OBC ( Non-Creamy Layer ) would get relaxation in age up to 5 years. It is further contended that according to Clause 5(ii), the maximum

¶27

¶28

age limit for permanent/temporary/work-charged and contingency-paid employees of boards or under the State of Chhattisgarh was 38 years. It is also contended that the respondent authorities committed an error of law in holding that the maximum age limit for a contingency-paid employee or work-charged employee would be 38 years and they are not entitled to get a concession of 5 years in age as mentioned in Clause 5(i) & 5(ii) of the advertisement and condition for contractual employee not mentioned in the advertisement.

¶29

He would refer to the Important Note (महत ् वप ू्ቓ� ट ि �प) (i), which says that after extending the benefit of all concession/relaxation, the age of a candidate should not be more than 45 years. He further submitted that the age of the petitioner was 43 years which is below 45 years; therefore, he is within the zone of consideration. It is further contended that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Training Officer.

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that a specific condition was inserted with regard to permanent/ temporary/ worked-charged or contingency-paid employees working within the State of Chhattisgarh; the maximum age limit provided for such aspirants was 38 years. He further submitted that the age of the petitioner was more than 38 years; therefore, his candidature was rejected.

¶31

Mr. Badgaiya would refer to Rules 8(I)(d) (i)&(ii) of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Training (Non-Gazetted) Class III Service Recruitment Rules, 2014, which deals with the age relaxation for the employees of the State Government. He further submitted that according to this rule, the age of the candidate who is a permanent or temporary Government servant should not be more than 38 years and a candidate holding a temporary post and

¶32

¶33

applying for another post should not be more than 38 years of age. He would also submit that since the age of the petitioner was more than 38 years; his candidature was rejected by the respondents. It is also contended that the rule will prevail over circular.

¶34

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

¶35

Rule 8 (I) (b) says that the upper age limit shall be relaxable up to a maximum of five years if a candidate belongs to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and O.B.C. (Non-Creamy Layer). Rule 8 (I) (c) further says that the upper age limit shall also be relaxable up to a maximum of 10 years for women candidates. A conjoint reading of Rules 8 (I)(b) and (I)(d) would make it clear that a candidate holding a temporary or permanent post with the State of Chhattisgarh applying for another post should not be more than 38 years of age, but if the candidates are members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes, they will get additional relaxation up to the age of five years. In the rules as well as in the advertisement, there is a specific provision that after extending all relaxation, the age should not exceed 45 years, meaning thereby, a candidate belonging to a reserved category shall get an additional age relaxation of five years along with relaxation which is provided to a candidate of general category.

¶36

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the considered opinion of this Court, the respondent authorities wrongly rejected the candidature of the petitioner; therefore, the decision taken by the respondent authorities whereby the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected is hereby quashed. The authority concerned is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Training Officer of

¶37

¶38

ITI.

¶39

With the aforesaid observation(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of .

¶40

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶41

$iddhant

Kaushal Kumar Sahu, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushal Kumar Sahu, v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bedram Tandekar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kishori Lal Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shashi Kiran Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhola Prasad Patel Vs State of Chhattisgarh

R. a. Shrivastava @ Ram Abhilash Shrivastava Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Anand Jataw Vs State of Chhattisgarh