HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 588 of 2011 (S/S) Smt. Panzy Gladys. …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents. Mr. Bhupendra Bisht, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, Standing Counsel for the State. Dated: June 17, 2011: Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction to respondent no.1 to consider her claim for age relaxation for the period she worked in the Department under Rule 27 of the U.P. Subordinate Nursing (Non Gazetted) Service Rules, 1979 and Rule 3 (2) of ‘Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Relaxation of Age- Limits for Recruitment) Rules, 1992’. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on 27.10.2007, the petitioner was appointed as Staff Nurse/Midwife and was posted, on contract basis, at Primary Health Centre, Berinag. It is contended that the State Government was facing acute shortage of Staff Nurse/Midwife in the hilly region of the State, therefore in the year 2007, the State Govt. appointed Staff Nurse/Midwife in various hill Primary Health Centres, with the view that people of Uttarakhand may get medical aid in time. Such appointment was made in public interest. The petitioner was also given appointment on 27.10.2007 on contractual basis and since then she is 2 continuously working and serving the Department. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Rule 14 of U.P. Subordinate Nursing (Non Gazetted) Service Rules, 1979 provides that the appointing authority shall determine and notify to the Employment Exchange, in accordance with the rules and orders for the time being in force, the number of vacancies to be filled during the course of the year but the State Government failed to notify the vacancies in the year 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 and no recruitment was made during those years, however the petitioner was fully eligible to be considered for appointment on the post of Staff Nurse/Midwife. It is contended that the respondents issued advertisement in the year 2011 and by that time the petitioner became overage and she cannot apply for the post advertised in the year 2011, as she has crossed 40 years of her age. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in case appointment would have been made earlier, the petitioner would have been applied for the said posts. He further submitted that, in any case, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for age relaxation for the posts, which fell vacant in the year 2007 to 2009. He submitted that the petitioner approached to the State Government well within time, but her application for age relaxation has yet not been considered. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the inaction on the part of the respondents in not providing benefit of age relaxation to those Nurses, who have rendered their service to the society, is not only arbitrary but unreasonable also. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is also one of the aspirants of the post of Staff Nurse/Midwife, but she apprehends that her application will be rejected, as her 3 representation for age relaxation has yet not been decided by the respondents. I have perused the relevant rules. Since, the power of relaxation of age vests upon the Government and there is specific provision under Rule 27 of U.P. Subordinate Nursing (Non Gazetted) Service Rules, 1979 regarding age relaxation, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the Secretary, Medical Health and Family Welfare, Dehradun to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. In case, representation of the petitioner is allowed and age relaxation is granted to her, her candidature will be considered, in accordance with the advertisement. Interim relief application (CLMA No. 5928 of 2011) also stands disposed of. Let certified copy of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner today itself, on payment of usual charges. (V.K. Bist, J.) 17.06.2011 NCM: