IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civl Writ Petition No.12680 of 2011 Date of Decision : August 19, 2011. Rakesh Kumar Gumber .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Parvez Chugh, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner seeks quashing of selection to the posts of Junior Engineers (Civil) made for appointment in the Water Supply and Sanitation Department, Government of Punjab. The short controversy revolves around the eligibility of the petitioner, namely, whether he is entitled to seek relaxation in upper age limit in terms of Clause 4 (a) of the advertisement dated 4.12.2009 (Annexure P-1)? The undisputed facts are that the petitioner was born on 2.2.1968. He is working as a Technical Assistant in a Scheme under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (for short 'the NREGA') under CWP No.12680 of 2011 [2] the Zila Parisad, Ferozepur, w.e.f. 30.11.2009 as certified vide memo dated 12.5.2010 (Annexure P-4). The Punjab Water Supply and Sanitation Department, Punjab issued an Advertisement dated 4.12.2009 (Annexure P-1) inviting applications to fill up 85 posts of Junior Engineers (Civil) with a stipulation that the candidates should not be below 18 years and beyond 35 years of age as on 15.1.2010. Clause 4 (a) further provides as follows: “04. Age: The age of the candidate should not be below 18 years and beyond 35 years as on 15.1.2010. Provisions of relaxation in age are following:- a) If any person previously serving in Central Government, Punjab Government or any other State Government, in that case his upper age limit shall be 45 years. xx xx xx xx xx” The petitioner was admittedly above the age of 35 years on the cut off date and has been held ineligible by declining age relaxation in terms of the clause 4 (a) reproduced above. This action of the official respondents, according to the petitioner, is arbitrary and per se discriminatory. The petitioner asserts that “he is in service of the State Government and is thus entitled to the benefit of age relaxation”. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. I say so for the reason that the phrase “service” under the “Central” or the “State” Government is a well defined connotation referable to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The posts for which budgetary provision is made out of the 'consolidated CWP No.12680 of 2011 [3] fund' of the State and are occupied by the 'Civil Servants' to whom protection of Article 311 of the Constitution is available, are ordinarily known as the 'services' under the Central or State Governments. The petitioner is working in a Scheme flouted under the NREGA which is executed by the Zila Parisad as the Apex Institution of Panchayati Raj established under Article 243 of the Constitution. The appointment, security or tenure of employment under the Panchayat/Zila Parisads are not regulated by the legislation or subordinate legislation enacted under Article 309 nor the incumbents are entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. The 'service' under the Zila Parisads is thus, distinguishable from the 'service' under the State or the Central Governments. The benefit of relaxation in upper age under clause 4 (a) of the advertisement is admissible to a regular employee only. The expression “serving” is to be construed to mean a person having right to hold the post. Such a benefit cannot be extended to contractual appointments. For the reasons aforestated, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned selection. Dismissed. August 19, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE