IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 938 of 2011. Judgment reserved on : 19.4.2011. Date of Decision : 3. 5.2011 Ajit Kumar and another Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and others. Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioners : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. J. K. Verma, Dy. A.G. for respondents No. 1 and 2. Justice Sanjay Karol, J. Petitioners have confined their relief to the following prayer:- “(iv) That in the alternative the respondents be directed to interview the petitioners ignoring the fact of sealing upper age limit of forty five years and complete the selection process after considering the merit of the petitioners’ alongwith other selected candidates.” 2. In this petition, essentially the challenge is to the condition with regard to the upper age limit fixed by the 2 Government of Himachal Pradesh while notifying the scheme for appointment of Block Engineers (on contract basis) to be appointed by the Zila Parishads in Himachal Pradesh. 3. The scheme was brought in by the Government for providing technical assistance and guidelines to the Panchayati Raj Institutions and also for supervising works executed by the agencies under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, watershed and other developmental works being executed by the Panchayati Raj Institutions. The Block Engineers are expected to technically supervise and control the entire technical staff posted in the Zila Parishads. 4. In terms of the scheme notified on 21.8.2010 (Annexure P-1) the Government fixed the following eligibility criteria with regard to the age limit:- “Candidate should fall in the age group of 18 to 45 years at the time of applying for the post. Once selected candidate may continue upto the age of 58 years subject to extension of contract.” 5. In terms of the aforesaid notification, the Chief Executive Officer (respondent No. 4) issued notice (Annexure P-2) inviting applications for selection and appointment to the said post. Petitioners who were otherwise employed as Junior Engineers on contract basis in the office of the Block Development Officer, District Kangra, applied for the same. Vide written communication (Annexure P-3) they were asked to appear before the interview 3 committee on 22/2/2011, on which date they were not allowed to participate in the interview for the reason that they were over-age and thus ineligible. 6. Petitioners belong to scheduled caste category. This fact is not in dispute. Petitioners were otherwise employed with the Government is also not in dispute. Petitioner No. 1 was appointed as Junior Engineer on 11.11.2005 and petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Junior Engineer on 1.1.2005. It is nobodies case that petitioners have not been discharging their duties successfully and to the satisfaction of the respondent state. 7. Significantly the date on which the petitioners were to be interviewed for the post in question their age was 45 years and seven months (approximately). 8. We are of the considered view that by not allowing the petitioners to appear in the interview for the post in question, the selection committee has ignored the notifications dated 28.8.1982 and 3.8.1985 issued by the Government as contained in the Hand Book on Personnel Matters Vol -I (Second Edition), Department of Personnel, Government of Himachal Pradesh. Relevant extract of the same are reproduced as under:- “5.6 Relaxation of maximum age limits sanctioned for certain specific categories. (i) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes: - The maximum age limit prescribed for appointment to a service or post is to be increased by five years in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes.” 4 “(vi) Candidates already in Government Service The upper age limit for direct recruitment will not be applicable to the candidates already in service of the Govt. including those who have been appointed on adhoc or on contract basis. Provided that if a candidate appointed on adhoc basis had become overage on the date when he was appointed as such he shall not be eligible for any relaxation in the prescribed age limit by virtue of his such adhoc or contract appointment.” 9. As per notification dated 28.8.1982 the criteria with regard to the upper age limit in the case of scheduled castes is to be increased by five years. Further the upper age limit criteria for direct recruitment is not to be applied to the candidates already in service of the Government even on ad-hoc/contract basis. Any which way, petitioners were fully eligible for being considered for appointment for the post of Block Engineer. 10. The overall control and supervision of the officers and officials of the Zila Parishads is with the Secretary. The duties by these officers and officials is to be performed in accordance with the rules framed by the Government. The above mentioned instructions are in vogue and are being consistently followed and applied by the Government with respect to all posts/services. 11. Thus the rejection of the candidature of the petitioners, at the time of interview on the ground of ineligibility due to age limit is thus illegal. 5 12. By way of interim order this Court had directed that two posts to be kept vacant. Consequently there is a direction to the respondent No. 3 to interview the petitioners, in accordance with law, for selection to the post of Block Engineer which are lying vacant. Needful be done within a period of two weeks from today. 13. Petition thus stands allowed with the aforesaid directions. DASTI. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. (Justice Sanjay Karol), Judge. 3. 5.2011 (PK)