\»^,-^sncy .....^^@-^ ^..-- ,»W-?3^J...-.-- -r\ (^^^a^^_ ^^:.....--"" ^0-" BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT_ BILASPUR W. P.(S) No. Lf gA3 /2008 Mls^. ^ e ^ t' §„ PETITIONERS 1) JG'o^ ^v^ ^:.^' RESPONDENTS 2) ^ %»^/oSs:. O^^—^i^. y^- --~<-^,, ff.^/ .a-A?-Y^ Ijf'^^:...^ -^ i ^? ^.'•- *^..\'-^', ^ ! f VERSUS 1)"' 2) 3) Sandeep Kumar Shrivastava S/o.- Shri Pratap Lal Shrivastava, aged about 35 years, R/o.- Bazarline- Chhuikhadan, Rajnandgaon Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Deepak Kumar Mishra S/o. Shri Ramdhyan Prasad Mishra, aged about 37 years, Resident ofVillage Arjuni, Post Arjuni, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh Through - Secretary Panchayat and Rural Welfare Department, Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur (C.G.) Zila Panchayat Through :- Chief Executive Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Janpad Panchayat Through :- Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) »!f WRIT PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 4g HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR WRIT PETIT\ON (S) NO 4829 OF 2008 PETITIONER _Sandeep Kumar $hrlvastava & Another Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others RESPONDENTS . > And W.P.(S) Nos. 5188, 6735 &-6736-of 2008 ahd W.P. (S) No.578 of 2009 (Writ petitions under Article 2260f the Constitution of India) w A I ~ v “m A Single Bench : Hon’bie Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. R ..i' Present :- Shri Anup Mazumdér and Shri Roop Naik, cou4nsel for the respective petitioners ShrIYS Thakhr Dy Adv Generalforthe State Shrl Y.S. Thakur, counsel for the respondent No.3 in W.P. (S) Nos.4829 & 5188 of 2008‘ Non for the respondent No 2 in W P (S) No 6735 of 2008 nShn Akhilesh Kumar Advocate appears on behalf of Shri Arun Sao counsel for the respondent No 2 In WP (S) NO 6736 of 2008 Shri Y S Thakur counsel for the respondents No 2 & 3 in I W P (S) NO 578 of 2009 ORDER' (Delivered on this .2;“day of February, 2010) W.P.(S) Nos.4829, 5188. 6735 & 6736 of 2008 and W.P. (S) No.578 of 2009 involve a common question of law as well as common facts and/,7 as-visuch, all the petitions are being considered together and disposed of by this common order. Challenge in these writ petitions is to the inStruction/direction dated 3-1-2008 (Annekure — PI1 in all the writ petitions) issued by the respondent No.1 fixing the minimum age 21 years and maximum age 35 years for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi, as n 1-1 -2009.‘ o The indisputable facts in W.P. (S) Nos. 4829, 5188 & 6735 of 2008, are that the petitioners applied for appointment to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade — III pursuant to the advertisement dated 14—1—2008 (Annexure —/P/2 in W.P. (S) No.4829 of 2008) wherein it was provided that the seiection would be done in accordance with the memos dated 1-12-2007 and as per the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Ruies, 2007 (for short “the Rules, 2007”). In the modei advertisement prepared and circulated'vide impugned memo dated 3-1-2008 by the State, the cut-off date for qualifying age was 1—1-2009 to the effect that the minimum age as on 1-1-2009 should not be less than 2’1 years and more than 35 years with other admissible relaxations granted by the State. On the date of the advertisement, the age of the petitioner No.1 (Sandeep Kumar Shrivastava) in W.P. (S) No.4829 of 2008 was below 35 years and the age of the petitioner No.2 Deepak Kumar Mishra was above 35 years as on 20-3-2006 and was V entitled to relaxation of/two years on account of holder of green /, card. The age of the petitioners in W.P. (S) No.5188 of 2008 & W.P. (S) No.6735 of 2008 was below 40 years, they belong to reserved category and, as such, they are entitled for the benefit of age relaxation. After due process of selection, the petitioners cannot be appointed. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, the other candidates below the petitioners in the t: a ew. 1'! y‘rrmexm way vuwmvwmn selection list were selected. Rejection list was published vide Annexure — P/8 to W.P. (S) No.4829 of 2008 wherein it was stated that the petitioners were not selected on account of being over age. As on 1—1-2009 the petitioners were beyond the maximum age limit. Thus, these writ petitions. The indisputable facts in»W.P. (S) No.6736 of 2008 and W.P. (S) No.578 of 2009, are that the petitioners applied for appointment to the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade - ii & Grade — lll, respectively pursuant to the advertisement .dated 14-1—2008 (Annexure — P/5 in W.P. (S) No.6736 of 2008) and advertisement dated 12-1-2008 (Annexure — P/4 in W.P. (S) No.578 of 2009) wherein it was provided that the selection would be done in accordance with the memos dated 1—12-2007 and as per the provisions of the Rules, 2007. Shri Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioners by the respondent authorities was illegal and contrary to the Rules, 2007. Under the Rules, 2007 the maximum age limit for selection and appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi was stated 35 years, therefore, the relevant date to consider the /, maximum age limit was the date of advertisement, as no cut—off date was prescribed in the Rules, 2007. If the cut—off date is taken to be the date of advertisement, the petitioners would not be more than the prescribed age limit as per their respective categories. The action of the respondent authorities is irrational, illegal and unreasonable; as a result, the candidates, who secured lesser marks than the petitioners, have been selected. There was no mention in the advertisement about the cut-off date for fixing the age limit. On the other hand, Shri Thakur and Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Iearned counsel appearing the respondents, would submit that it was clearly mentioned in the advertisement that the selections are being made in accordance with the Rules, 2007 and subsequent amendments in the Rules, as applicable. The maximum age limit for appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmia was 35 years, as prescribed in the Rules, 2007. There was age relaxation for SC/ST/OBC and women candidates. Even after giving the benefit of age relaxation, the petitioners are not coming within the prescribed minimum age limit. Shri Thakur, would next submit that the petitioners have not impleaded the other Successful candidates, particularly those candidates who were down below in the select list and were appointed, as party/respondents. If the petitioners succeed in these petitions, the other selected candidates would be affected, as their appointment would result into termination. Thus, these writ petitions deserve to be dismissed on the ground on non-joinder of necessaw partiesalone. / 10. i have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 11. Schedule ll of the Rules, 2007 prescribes the maximum age limit as 35 years for appointment on the posts of Shiksha Karmi Grade — l, Grade — ii & Grade — lll. It is» nowhere provided in the Rules, 2007 that what would be the cut—off date in respect of age. In the advertisement also there is no mention about the cut-off date either 1-1-2009 or 1-1-2008. Except that the seiection shall be made in accordance with the memo dated 1-12-2007 and as per the provisions of the Ruies, 2007 with subsequent amendments. In W.P. (S) No.4829 of 2008 the advertisement was published on 14-1-2008. Last date for making application was 9-2-2008. The date of examination was 30-3—2008. The document page 13 (Annexure -— PI1) filed by the petitioners in W.P. (S) No.4829 of 2008 appears to be the model of advertisement. lt is a model advertisement, which was to be issued by the respective Janpad Panchayats. 12. ln case of advertisements issued by the Janpad Panchayats, Kasdol, Tilda, Balod and Bemetara, the cut-off date fixed for age limit was 1—1 —2008. 13. it is a trite law that if the cut-off date for age limit as well as for qualification is not prescribed in the advertisement nor in the Rules, 2007, it should be the last date for filing of the application pursuant to the advertisement. The question asto what should be the cutsoff date in absence of any date specified, in this behalf either in the adveitisement or in the reference is no lohger res infegra. / 15. The Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar Sonkar v. Union of india and Others1, observed as under: “20. Possession of requisite educational qualification is mandatory. The same should not be uncertain. lf an uncertainty is allowed toprevail, the employer would be flooded with applications of ineligible 1 (2007) 4 SCC 54 candidates. A cut-off date for. the purpose of determining the eligibility of the candidates concerned must, therefore, be fixed. In absence of any ruievor any specific date having been fixed in the advertisement, the law, therefore, as heid by this Court would be the last date for filing the application " In Dlpitlmayee Panda v State of Orissa and Othersz the Supreme Court observed that “ordinarily the qualification of extra qualification laid down for the recruitment should be considered as on the last date for filing of the application." 17. it has been brought to the notice of this Court that other Janpad Panchayats have given the cut-off date as on 1-1-2008. ln the present cases though no cut-off date has been prescribed, but the authorities have taken the cut-off date as 1-1-2009 on the basis of model advertisement circulated with memo dated Thus, the cut-off date for the purpose of those candidates, who have applie‘dfor selection on the post of Shiksha Karmi would be the last date for filing the application form in the concerned subject advertisement, as the cut-off date mentioned in the model advertisement cannot be considered, as the glit-offsdate on the ground that firstly; the same was internal circular and; secondly; it was not brought to pursuant to advertisement, responded and applied for selection on the post 3—1—2008 (Annexure — P/1). the notice of the candidates, who, the 2 (2008) 1O SCC 687 of Shiksha’ Karmis. 18. ln view of foregoing, the individual cases of the petitioners may be considered, for their selection and appointment, if vacancies are availabie as per the notified vacancies in the concerned subject advertisement. The cases of the petitioners may also be considered for grant of age relaxation, if permissible under the legal provisions. However, it is made clear that the appointed candidates shall not be disturbed on the ground that they were not impleaded as party/respondents in these petitions. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of. 20. There shall be no order as to costs. Gowri l , Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri . \ Judge \