255 CWPNOe 12797Of 20 ID 1 IN THE HIGHCOURT OF PUNJAB AND HARY A CWPNo12797 of 2010 DATE OF DECISION August 19 2011 DrTejinder Kaur Dhaliwal Petitioner versus Punjab AgriculturalUniversity Ludhiana and another e Respondents l CO HONBLE MRS JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDH 0 Presentl MrSumeet Mahajan Senior Advocate with 0 Mr Amit Kohar Advocate for the petitloner MrDeepak Agnihotri Advocate for the I C5 respondents I DAYA CHAUDHAIYT Z The present petition has been filed for of impugned order dated 1762010 vide which the representationof the petitioner for relaxation C Z of upper age for recruitment to excadre post of Senlor Research Investlgator Punjab CQ Agricultural University Ludhiana from 35 to 45 years mw Z has been declined A further prayer of the ll petitloner 1S for direction to the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear in the intezview for the post of Senior Research Investigator and to consider her claim for appointment An advertisenent was published on 272010 for inviting applications for appointment to varlous posts including two posts of Senior Research Investigators as excadre posts 1r1 department of Batra Amit 2014.05.15 15: 36 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 256 CWP No 12797Of 2010 2 6 1 Economlcs 6 Sociology Punjab 1 University Ludhiana As per advertisement the 1 prescribed nunlmum age was 18 years and the maximum 1 age was 35 years The petitioner applied for the said post considering herself eligible under clause of age relaxation as she was having 14 years of research experience to her credit The stand of the 1l petitloner was that being a service candidate she was 0 entitled for benefit of age relaxation and for that 0 I she made a representation which was rejected by 0 No 2 vide order dated 176 2010 on the I groundthat there was no provision under the Rules Z for relaxation of maximum age in case of non teaching 0 post The rejection by the respondent 1S subject matter of challenge lIl the present petition on the C Z groundthat advertisement with regard to maxlmum age contrary to the rules applicable ln case of the 1S provided under the 7 petitioner as no maxlmum age lS Z relevant Rules The advertisement issued contrary to Om the Rules is illegal and arbitrary The further 1 argumentof the learned counsel for the petitioner 1S that under 2 101 under Chapter VI of the Statute of Punjab Agricultural University no age of entry ln 1 service has been prescribed and clause 2311 of the Statute further provides that in the matter in which no provision has been provided ln the Statutethe 3 conditions of service would be at par with the e 1 C t Batra Amit 2014.05.15 15: 36 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 257 CWPNOel2q of 2010 conditions of service of State of Punja counselfurther submits that in State of Punjab the service for government employees 1S age of entry ln 45 years and not 35 years and as such the petitioner 1S eligible to appear ln the selection process for the post of Senior Research Investigator Rule 5 of the Punjab Civil Services General 8 Common 1 r Conditionsof Servicel Rules 1994 is reproduced as 0 under 1 0 I URule 51 Age 11 No person shall be C5 recruited to the servlce by direct I if he is less than eighteen Z yearsor is more than thirty years of age ln the case of non technical posts and thirty I the case of technical posts on the years l Z 1 day of January of the year immediately CO precedingthe last date fixed for submission mm of applications by the Commission or the Z Board as the case may be or unless he is tl within such range of minimum and maximum age limits as may be specifically fixed by the Government from time to tlme Provided that where different lower and upper age limits have been specifically prescribed for posts ln the Service Rules these limits shall be made applicable for appointment to such Posts7 r Batra Amit 2014.05.15 15: 36 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 258 CWPNo127920f 2010 1 Provided further that the upper age limit may be relaxed upto forty five years 111 the case of persons already 111 the l S emplont of Punjab Government other State Governt or the Government of India E n has also been submitted by the learned It 1 counsel for the petitioner that the claim of the C petitioner has wrongly been rejected on the ground 0 0 that there is provision for relaxation of age of V entry and there is no rule which prescribes upper age 1 C5 I of entry Learned counsel for the petitioner further t submits that the State of Punjab has power to relax Z r 1 the age to that of 45 years for government employees e C which is applicable in the case of the petitioner 8e 9 I The argument of the learned counsel for the 1 rn Z also that in case of matters of petltloner 1S 1 0 particularly the age and other conditions b mm of service if any provided under the Statute the Il Z Rules applicable to State of Punjab would be Clm 5i Il applicable where the age limit is 45 years and the 1 case of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected by considering the upper age as 35 years being lIl candidate Learned counsel for the serVlCe 1 petitioner also relies upon judgments in union Public Service comnission versus DreJamuna Ku and others r k91 20081 11 Supreme Court Cases 10 Naqendra Cllandra and others versus State of Jharkhand and othe 21 Batra Amit 2014.05.15 15: 36 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 259 CWPNo12792 of 20IO 5 4200811Supreme Court Cases 798 Union Teritory of Chandiqarh and others Ve Rajesh Kumar Basandhi and another 20031 11 Supreme Court Cases 549 Glrbachan Lal ve Reqional Enqineerinq Colleqe Kurukshetra and others 0071 11 Supreme Court Cases 102 National Fertilizers Ltde and others ve Somvir Sinqh 420061 5 Suprane Court Cases 493 Veer Kunwar Simh University m Ad hoc Teachers Association and others ve Bihar State 0 University Cel Selvice COmnission and others 0 2009117 Supreme Court Cases 184 Satya Prakash and C5 others ve State of Bihar and others 20101 4 SuPreme I Court Cases 179 Sheo Kumar and others ve State of Z Bihar and others Services Law Report 2005 620 and 0 Sunila ve State of Rajasthan Services Law Report I 200531 84 Z In response to notice of motion reply has been filed by the respondents which is on record m Learned counsel for the respondents submits nwvo Z that since the petitioner was working on contract Il basis being a research fellow she was appointed for a period of SlX months and as such she cannot be considered as in service candidate Her period of six months was further extended and there was a gap 17 before further extension and the petitioner cannot be considered as regular employee of the University In the advertisement the age limit for the post of Senior Research Investigator was not below than 18 Batra Amit 2014.05.15 15: 36 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 260 2 CWP NO I2 297 of 20 10 4 years and not more than 35 years The University bein the Educational and Research Institution lS having its OWn Acts and Statutes which have been approved by the Parliament The claim of the petitloner was rightly rejected Learned counsel for the respondentniversity further submits that clause 23 of Chapter VI of the Act and Statute of the 1 r respondentniversity 1S not applicable in case of 0 the petitioner as it has clearly been mentioned in 0 I the advertisement that age should not be less than 18 0 years and not more than 35 years I Heard the arguments of learned counsel for Z the parties and have also perused the impugned e rejection order as well as other documents available on the file Z Admittedly the advertisenent was published f 111 daily newspaper The Tribune dated 27 32010 inviting applications for appointment to varlous mmo Z postS including two posts of Senior Research 11 Investigator as excadre Post 111 the Department of Economlcs 6 Sociology of the respondent University As per advertisement the minimum age was mentioned 18 years and the maximm age was 35 years for the t post of Senior Research Investigator The petitioner applied for the said post and her date of birth is 2010 1971 It 1S also admitted fact that the petltloner has worked as research fellow in the Batra Amit 2014.05.15 15: 36 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 261 CWP NO 1of 2010 4 University on contract basis for a of 14 yearS e A representatlon was made by the petitioner that being ln servlce candidate for the post of Senlor Research Investigator the benefit of age relaxation can be given to her It was also mentioned in the representation that post in questlOn ls an excadre post and the qualification and job 1 C responsibility required for the post lIl questlon are 0 similar to teachinglresearch post There is no 0 maxlmum age limit under the Rulese The 0 representationof the petitioner has been rejected on the groundthat the petitioner cannot claim herself Z as 111 service candidate being a contract employee 1 whereas argument of learned counsel for the I petitloner 1S that the advertisement has been C1 Z published and the age mentioned in the advertisement CO 1S contrary to the rules applicable ln case of post mw3 of Senior Research Investigator and no maximum age Z can be prescribed It is also the argument of tl learned counsel for the petitioner that the Rules and Statutes applicable with regard to age are silent and ln that situation Rules applicable to the employees of State of Punjab would be applicable where the maximum age limit is 45 years NOW the question for consideration by this Court whether the Rules applicable to the State of Punjab would be applicble ln the case of the Batra Amit 2014.05.15 15: 36 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 262 CWPNo12747 of 201 8 1 petitioner with regard to maximum age limit the petitioner being contract employee can be considered as lO service candidate It is clear that Clause 2 ol under Chapter VI of State of Punjab Agricultural University Act no age of entry 111 servlce has been prescribed and clause 2341 of the Statutes further provides that lIl 1 C matter where no provision has been mentioned in the 0 Statute the conditions of service applicable to 0 I State of Punjab would be applicable In case of State t5 I of Punjab the upper age 1S 45 yearSe In case the Rules applicable to the State of Punjab are Z applicable to the case of the petitioner then she Q comes ln the age group as the maximum age 1S 45 years I as she was born on 20101971 The argument raised L0 Z by learned counsel for the University 1S contrary to 00 the grounds which have been mentioned ln the 7 rejection order The claim of the petitioner has Z been rejected only on the ground that the petitioner 0 cannot be considered being a contract employee Hon ble Supreme Court lIl DreJamuna Kurups case supral has held that employee would include both permanent or temporary regular or short ten 1 contractual or adhoc In Nagendra Chandras case supral the advertisement which was issued prior to the recruitment Rules was held to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India Batra Amit 2014.05.15 15: 36 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 263 CWP No 72797of 2010 1 9 1 1 In view of the facts as mentioned above as well as the law position explained above there is no provision with regard to upper age under the Rules and the age lIl the advertisement has been provided which is contrary to the Rules The petitioner being worked on contract basis cannot be denied this benefit as service includes even the part time job 1 0 also as has been held in Nagendra Chandras case 0 0 Supral At the time of issuance of notice of I motion the respondents were directed not to declare C5 the result and accordingly the respondents are directed to accept the application of the petitioner Z and consider her claim ln accordance with lawe C since the process of selection has already I been completed and other candidates have been Z interviewed only the claim of the petitioner was 0 rejected on the ground that she being a contract a employeewhich is not valid Z Accordingly in view of the facts and law as 1 Om mentioned above the respondents are directed to accept the application of the petitioner and consider her candidature for the said post in accordance with law Augustl9 2011 DAYA CHAUDHARYI KD JUDGE 1 Batra Amit 2014.05.15 15: 36 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document