IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 19661 of 2006 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.12.2007 Monica Khanna …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Ritu Bahri, DAG Haryana, for respondent No. 1. M.M. Kumar, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner eligible in age for the post of lecturer in Chemistry as per advertisement dated 18.5.2006 issued by respondent No. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 9.1.1995 respondent State has taken a decision by exercising the power of relaxation that there would be no upper age limit for appointment of Lecturers in Government Aided Private Colleges. It is pertinent to notice that there is no upper age limit for the post of Lecturers in all Universities of the State nor any such thing has been provided by the University Grant C.W.P. No. 19661 of 2006 (O&M) Commission. The Government of Haryana in the year 1999 imposed a blanket ban on regular appointment of Lecturers in Government Aided Private Colleges and as such no appointment on regular basis could be made after 1999. This ban was removed in the year 2006. The petitioner is working on contract/adhoc basis as Lecturer in Chemistry. The management of Guru Nanak Khalsa College, Yamuna Nagar-respondent No.2 on 18.5.2006 advertised the various posts of Lecturers including one post of Lecturer in Chemistry. Thereafter, corrigendum was issued on 16.6.2006, 6.7.2006 and 2.12.206. The petitioner being duly eligible has applied for the said post. On 16.10.2006, Government had taken a decision that upper age limit for appointment of Lecturers in Government Aided Private Colleges would be 40 years. The management-respondent No. 2 decided to hold interview on 14.12.2006 but the candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that she was more than 40 years of age. When this petition came up for consideration before motion Bench on 12.12.2006, the following order was passed: “ Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the issue raised in the instant petition is pending consideration of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 17167 of 2006, which is posted for hearing on December 14, 2006. Notice of motion for December 14, 2006. Process dasti only. Interim directions in the same terms. To come up alongwith Civil Writ Petition 2 C.W.P. No. 19661 of 2006 (O&M) No. 17167 of 2006. Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. It is appropriate to mention that in C.W.P. No. 17167 of 2006 the Division Bench on 9.11.2006, passed the following interim order:- “ The petitioner shall be permitted to participate in the selection process provisionally as we have already held in CWP No.3081 of 2005 decided on 25.9.2006 (tilted as Umesh Kumar and others v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others) that in case the petitioners fulfill all other qualifications provided by rules then they should also be permitted to compete, waiving the age restriction imposed for the recruitment. The result of the petitioner shall be kept in a sealed cover and the same be produced before this Court.” Thereafter on 20.2.2007 the instant petition was admitted and ordered to be heard within a period of three months. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the controversy raised in this petition is squarely covered by a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Umesh Kumar and others v. Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra and others decided on 25.9.2006 (CWP No. 3081 of 2005), which could not be successfully disputed by the learned State counsel. After hearing learned counsel for the parties I find that 3 C.W.P. No. 19661 of 2006 (O&M) the interview was cancelled by the management-respondent No. 2 in pursuance to the advertisement dated 18.5.2006 and corrigendum dated 16.6.2006, 6.7.2006 and 2.12.2006. No advertisement thereafter has been issued and the management-respondent No. 2 appears to be waiting for the result of the instant petition. The petitioner cannot be considered in-eligible merely on the ground that she is overage. Therefore, she shall be deemed to be qualified for appointment as Lecturer. As and when an advertisement is issued and vacancy of Lecturer is sought to be filled up by the management- respondent no.2, then the petitioner may not be considered ineligible on the ground that she is over age. However, specific orders in that regard be obtained by the petitioner by moving a Civil Misc. application in the instant petition. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) 19.12.2007 JUDGE Pkapoor 4