H IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.:'HON’BLE SHRILDHIREND§A MISHRA, & ON’BLE SHRI R.N.‘CHANDRAKAR uJJ Writ Appeal No. 83 ofv 011 Dr. Narendra DattrMishra Son of Shri‘ Ram 'Prasad Mishra, aged 40- years, Occupation Service, Presently working as Ayu‘rvedic Chikitsha Adhikari Municipal Corporation Raipur resudent of‘ Santoshi Nagar Shivajl Chowk Tikrapara Ward Raipur (CG) State of Chhattlsgarh through the Secretary, Urban Administration Deveiopment Department D KS. Bhawan, Mantralaya Raipur’(CG) V The ‘Municipai Corporation, through CommISSioner MunICIpal Corporation Jai Stambh Chowk Raipur(CG) Sunil Kumar Goihani, Son 'of Shri S.K. Golhani, aged about 50 years, ‘Medical Practitioner resident of 245 Sunder Nagar Raipur District » Raipur (CG) APPELLANT (Respondent o. 3) -Versus- ' RESPONDENTS: (RespOndén’ts No. 1 & . 2 in the writ,.‘p,it etion) (Petitioner V in writ Ipetition) fi Present Shri Raieev Shrivastava With Shri C R Sahu counsel for the appellant Shri Sumesh Baiai, Govt Advocate forthe State/respondent No 1 Shri H B Agrawal Sr Advocate With Smt Meera Jaisai Avoe fr respondent No 2 ‘ Shri Gautam Bhaduri, counsel for respondent No.3. ’ JUDGMENT Delivered on 8th March, 201 1) ‘ ' Per Dhirendra Mishra J 1 This writ appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 3 2-2011 ‘ ’ ’ passed in Writ Petition No 2014 of 2006 whereby learned Single Judge ' 'has allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 13 7 2004 (Annexure P/20) of respondent No 3 on the post of Ayurvedic Chikitsa. 3 ,. r ’ Adhikari and further granted4weeks timetothe respondentauthoritiesto > s r comply ~With the order dated 11 3 1997 (Annexure P/4) passed by the ‘ ’ _ ,High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Sunil Kumar Golhani Vs State o hers. H : N ' w dcat o ( ' f » M P & ot W ‘\ ‘y nun-1' m» k 7 x. 2. Shn Rajeev Shrwastava learned counsel appearmg on behalf of the appellant submitted that finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the apporntment order of the appellant hereln was m contravention of the directions Issued by the Madhya Pradesh Hrgh Court Is erroneous as drrectrons have been duly complied With. Learned Single Judge has falled to notice that at time of appointment of the appellant, respondent No.3 was over age and as Such he was not qualified to be appointed on the post of Ayurvedrc Chrkrtsa Adhlkarr and therefore the appellant has been appornted In any case learned Single Judge ought to have Issued a direction that the case of the appellant as well as respondent No 3 be consrdered afresh in vrew of the directions issued by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No 2822 of 1995 Referring to paragraph 15 of the impugned order it was vehemently 'arguedithat learned Single Judge, Without recording any finding on merit, has wrOngIy observed that Local Administration Departmentvide its memo dated 20-8-1 997'directed the Corporation that the age of the candidat n shOuld tbe taken as on the date .of 13‘ January of the next year from 3-2- 1992 .‘ajnd the time spent in the selection process may not be added to the: - age ofl the candidate whereas the General Administration Departmen lreferring to Circular No 18 15/91/3/1 dated 3-2 1992 directed that age should be determined as on 15‘ January of the next year from the specrfc date and year mentioned in the advertisement and the time taken in‘ selection process should not be added in age of the candidate. The referred circular is‘strictly -in accordance with Rule 8 (l)‘of the Madhy Pradesh (Chhattisgarh) State Administrative Service Classification Recruitment and Conditions of Service Rules, 1975 (he'reinafter‘referred to as ‘the Rules 1975’) which specifically provides that in order to b eligible to compete at the competitive examination a candidate must no‘ have attained the higher age limit on the 13‘ d y of January followrng th. a: I date of commencement of the competitive examination Thus the observation that age of the candidate should be taken on the frst day o ~ a. e t e f ‘ January of the next year from 3 2 1992 is contrary to the letter of ' Annexure-P/8 as‘well as circular dated 3—2-1992. & t ->>3. On the other hand, Shri Gautam Bhaduri, learned counsel appearing for “‘ respondent,No.3 would argue that resolution dated 18-5-2004 (Annexure- l é ' J 2 . : i t e t P/17) fon appointment of the appellant herein passed by the Mayor-in- Council deh‘ors ‘the provisions of Section 58 (1) of the Municipal ‘ Corporation Act 1956 (for short ‘the Act of 11956) and the rules frame thereunder and the same was passed on the basrs of Ietter of Annexure- P/16 of Specral Secretary, Department of Envrronment and Urban Development The appomtment of the appellant was also contrary to the order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh In Sunrl Kumar Golhanr s case (Supra). Learned Single Judge has rightly held tha recommendation of the name of the appellant‘for’ appointment on the’post of Ayurvedic Chikista Adhikari was Vitiated on the aforesaid grounds . Learned counsel for the State as well as MunICIpal Corporation reiterated their stand before the learned Single Judge in their return and. oppose the prayer of the petitioner/respondent . Heard learned counsel for the parties Perused the impugned order . The appomtment of the appellant was made Without followmg the prOViSions of sub—section (1) of Section 58 of the Act of 1956 and the rule framed thereunder on the ba3is of letter dated 25 2—2004 of Annexure- P/16 and the same was also contrary to the order passed by the Hig Court of Madhya Pradesh in Sunil Kumar Golhanis case (Supra) Therefore we are entirely in agreement With the finding of learned Single Judge that the appomtment of the appellant was Vitiated on the aforesaid ground . However we find substance in the argument of learned counsel for e appellant that observations in para 15 of the impugned order that age of the candidate should be taken as on the date of 15t January of the next year from 3—2 1992 and the time spent in the selection process may not be added to the age of the candidate as directed Vide memo dated 20 8- 1997 of Annexure PI8 of the Local Administration Department is on th face of it contrary to the memo itself and the Circular referred in the memo On perusal of the memo and referred Circular dated 29 3 1989 it is manifestly clear that age of the candidate should be taken as on the date of 1s‘ January of the next year of the speCific date mentioned in the - advertisement ln bove Circular also reference has been made to d i ; t ( V, d: s h i th e the a ‘ Rule 8 (I) of the Rules, 1975, which deals with conditions ‘of eligibility of ' ‘ directirecruits in relation to agev . In View of the above quashment of appomtment of the appellant (respondent No 3 In the petition) Is confirmed The respondent authorities s ‘ shall comply With the order dated 11 3 1997 of Annexure P/4 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Sunil Kumar Golhanis case (Supra) however age of the candidates sha be determined as prowded in Circular No 18 15/91/3/1 dated 3-2 1992 which has been issued in accordance With sub rule (l) of Rule 8 of the Rules 1975 7% ‘ . The Writ appeal is disposed of accordingly. l / \ sdl— WAR d