IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 372 of 2007 Decided on: December 12, 2008. Union of India & Anr. Petitioners Vs. Bakshi Ram & Ors. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioners : Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. For the Respondent : Ms. Ritta Goswami, Advocate. No. 1. For the Respondent : Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. A.G. No. 2. Per Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) Writ petitioners have sought judicial review of order dated 28th September 2006, Annexure P-3, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, whereby Original Application filed by respondent No. 1, Bakshi Ram, has been allowed and petitioners have been directed to appoint him as Peon, in case he is otherwise found fit for the job. 2. Relevant facts are like this. Ex-servicemen Employment Cell, Hamirpur was approached by the Postal Department for sponsoring Ex-servicemen candidates for Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… appointment, as peons, included in Group-‘D’ posts. It appears that there were three vacancies of peons and two of them were reserved for Ex-servicemen, belonging to scheduled caste category. Respondent Bakshi Ram is Ex-serviceman and also belongs to a scheduled caste category. His age on the cut off date was 43 years, 4 months and 17 days. His candidature was cancelled by the petitioner on the ground that he was overage and was, therefore, not called for interview. He challenged the action of the petitioners, claiming that if the benefit of age relaxation meant for Ex-servicemen and scheduled caste candidates was given to him and calculated correctly, his candidature would not have been cancelled, on the ground of his being overage. 3. Admittedly, the respondent had been in Military service for 11 years, 10 months and 17 days, from where he was discharged on medical grounds. It is also the admitted case that an Ex-serviceman is entitled to age relaxation, equivalent to the service rendered in the Military and three years extra, that is to say over and above the period of service rendered in Military. A schedule caste candidate is entitled to additional age relaxation up to five years. Maximum age limit, according to the respondents, was 25 years. Petitioner took the plea before the Tribunal that he had added to the maximum age limit, period of service rendered by the respondent No. 1 in the Army and three more years and that even after addition of the period of military service and 3 extra years, he was over age. …3… 4. Learned Tribunal allowed the O.A. holding that maximum age limit was 27 years and not 25 years, as pleaded by the respondents and that the applicant (respondent No. 1, herein) was a disabled Ex-serviceman and hence, entitled to five years extra relaxation, by virtue of certain instructions appearing in ‘Swamy’s Complete Manual on establishment and administration of Central Government Offices’. 5. Tribunal’s decision has been challenged by way of the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and gone through the record. 6. We though do not agree with the view taken by the Tribunal that respondent No. 1 is a disabled Ex-Serviceman, yet it is made out from the record that respondent No. 1 besides being an Ex-serviceman belongs to Scheduled Caste category and he had been sponsored against a vacancy reserved for Ex- serviceman belonging to Scheduled caste and, therefore, he was entitled to another relaxation up to five years in the upper age limit. 7. Admittedly, respondent Bakshi Ram (respondent No. 1, herein) belongs to a scheduled caste, besides being an Ex- serviceman. Therefore, to the maximum age limit of 25 years, what was required to be added, was the entire period of his service in the army i.e. 11 years, 10 months and 17 days plus 3 years, as per rules of age relaxation for Ex-servicemen and 5 years age relaxation, on account of his belonging to scheduled …4… caste. Thus, in his case the upper age limit was to be 25 years +11 years, 10 months and 17 days + 3 years + 5 years=44 years, 10 months and 17 days. His age, according to the averment in the writ petition itself, was 43 years, 4 months and 17 days, on the cut off date. That means he was well within the upper age limit, prescribed for the post. 8. For the foregoing reasons, we see no merit in the writ petition. Order of the Tribunal does not call for interference. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. ( R.B. Misra ), J. December 12, 2008(vs) ( Surjit Singh ), J.