IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 17773-CAT of 2010 Date of Decision: September 30, 2010 Ajit Singh …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitu- tion is directed against order dated 25.11.2009 (P-1), passed by the Cen- tral Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), rejecting the claim made by the petitioner that being an Ex-serviceman he is entitled to appointment to the post of Welder. 2. The case pleaded by the petitioner is that he has obtained ap- prenticeship training from the Indian Railways from 12.4.1977 to 11.4.1979 and thereafter joined the Indian Army where he served upto 30.4.2004. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of instructions dated 12.12.1980, as clarified on 18.10.1985. CWP No. 17773-CAT of 2010 The instructions dated 12.12.1980, has, inter alia, provided that the Ex- serviceman who has put in not less than six months continuous service were to be given relaxation in the age limit to the extent of period of serv- ice plus three years in the case of apprentice. It has also been clarified that the age relaxation would be subject to the over-riding condition that in no case the age would exceed 35 years, which was later on clarified by instructions dated 18.10.1985 to be 40 years. 3. The Tribunal has non-suited the petitioner on the ground that he has become over age as he was over 40 years on the date of applica- tion. Both the aforesaid instructions, on which reliance has now been placed, were not relied before the Tribunal. Those instructions would also not advance the case of the petitioner because the fact remains that the maximum age limit prescribed even after relaxation is 40 years. The petitioner was admittedly more than 43 years on the last date of filing the application. Therefore, even if the instructions are permitted to apply to the case of the petitioner, he will still be over-age. There is, thus, no merit in the instant petition. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) September 30, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2