w L •^"rcro IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, AT - BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (St N0. ^> •3/7 OF 2006 PETITIONER YASHWANT SINGH THAKUR/- AGED - 48 YEARS, S/0 LATE J. S. THAKUR, '5i^//" o--' i'$- ^^ •• / ')^ POSTED AS - ASSISTANT GRADE - III, <.<vJ?y AT - 0/0 REGISTRAR, CO- OPERATIVE ••'^•"' ..••' SOCIEITIES, RAIUR (C. G.) R/0 SARAIPALI, DISTT. - MAHASAMUND. VERSUS ^f-»y ,\.-' RESPONDENTS 1. STATEOFCHHATTISGARH,' THROUGH - THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,RAIPUR D. K. S. BHAWAN, RAIPUR 2. THE REGISTRAR, -/ CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, RAIPUR CHHATTISGARH.. ^y^^^^ ^s:, vp, WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE - 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ^o Sinde Beach: Hon'bie Sbfl K. Afiai W. P.(S1 No. 5317 of 2006 Petitioner : Yashwant Snigh Thakur Versus Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh & another Shri R. K. Keshanipaui, coiinsel for the petitioner. Sfari Ajay Dmvedi, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. 1. Tbe petitioner was eniployed as Assistaut Grade-W. He intends to Hiake an application for appoiatmeiit on the post of C<x)pereitive inspector/Cooperative Extension Officer pursuant to the advertiseinent but the petitioner'is over age on account of tjie age liinit. pre;scribed iinder tlie cii-cular da.ted 11.9.2006(Annexuire P/1) wherein tbe laaxnaum age limit, as on Ist Janiiai-y', 2006, is that. the cancliclate should not be morc tlian 45 years. 2. The petitioner has filed this petition seekaig relaxation in fhe age limit and ftirtlier a dire.ction against. tliR Rtate/responden to consider and pass appropriafe onler on tiie basis of the letter dated 11.9.3006 (Annexure P/4) of the Additional Regista-ar, Coopei^itive Societies to the Secretaiy, Governinent of Cbhattisgarh, Coopei'ative Departinent, Manti-alaya, Raipur,- wtiereby age relaxation fora period of5 years was proposed. 3. Leai-n&d counsel appeariag for tlie petitioner siibm.its that fhe last exaiiiination took place in tlie year 1999 and tliereafter the lesponrlents./State have not taken anv steps to bold the ^\ departniental exaniination for about a period of six years. The petitioner has becoine over age on account of the fact that the departniental examination could not take place during six years. According to leamed couasel for tlie petitioner if the nelaxation in age Uinit is not granted that would deprive the petitioner froin appearing in the departinental examination, wbicb is uajust, arbitraiy and unreasonable. 4. I have heari leanied counsel for the petitioner aad perused the petition and the records appended thei^to. The contention of the petitioner is Diisconceived as tbe ch-culEir does not provide for aay relaxatiou m the outer age liinit on account of any groiind, inay be the examination could not take place for a period ofsix years. Tbe letter dated 11.9.2006 (Annexure P/4) is a inere proposal and no iinportance can be attached to tlie said letter tiU it is approved and made applicable to the employecs of the coopeiative departinent. 5. Be that as it niay, it is well settled principle oflaw that it is not for the Coiirts to direct the State Govemment/executives to take a pol'cy decision or to frame a rule prescribing for i^laxation in aee liinit in the event the exaDiniation could not take place earlier. 1t is for the State Govemnient to decide ancl tnake appiupriate arnendni.ents, if deenied necessary by the executives. 6. For fhe reasons stated above, this petitioil is disinissed. Sd/- , _: Satisb^nalom judge Tbakur