^^—t ^^ c-^l^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT: BILASPUR PETITIONER: W.P. No.^c^ OF 2003 Ishwar Pasad Sonwani, aged 39 years, son of Shri P.Sonwani, resident of Shailendra Apartment S-4, second floor, Mandir Chowk, Jarhabhata Bilaspur, tehsil & district Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). VERSUS RESPONDENTS: -^^^ t^.^.>'6 T<?"-" ^. 1. State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Law department, Raipur (C.G.), 2. Chhattisgarh Public Ser^ice Commission, through the Secretary, office of the C.S.P.S.C. Raipur. 3.Examination Controller, Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Raipur (C.G.). /•" WRIT PETITldN IINDER ARTICLE 226/227. OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. r.T 7 XI-HC-22 '5^';qPT{^PT, ^'al^<f<o, P«ytt<iy 3TT^T^-q^ HW^l{ ^^^•——————•*—-——^y^ 200 'N^i" ^^ ^H^F'^T f<4J<=h ^^ sbuict) 'yf^a ^n^F^cITW^rft^ <^»1<<{<?i<iln *<tH<?il ^^^ <fa^i< '^3iNn3?ii^r 01.08.2003 Sri Somnath Verma, counsel f}or the petitioner. Dr. N.K.Shukla, Additional Adj/ocate ^eneral with Shri Sanjcy K. Agrawal, Deputy Advocate fieneral 'f^r the State/ respondent No.l. Sri Y.C. Sharma/counsel for rfBSpondents 2 <& 3. By this writ petition undejr Articles 226 d 227 of the Constitution of India, the petttion^r has challenged the decision of respondents 2 & 3 by which th^y had rejected the petitioner's apptication and communicated fhe decision victe letter No. 52/A-7/Recruitment/1796 ftaipur, dated 27.06.2003. The main grievance of 1+ie petitioner in thisp|etition is that respondent No,2 by an advertisement No.l/2003/Exami(iation dated 02.04.2003 published on 62.04.2003 in ftojgar Aw Niyoja|i, a weekly news paper had mvited applications for recruitnnent to 1+1^ post of Givil Judge Cbss-II and copy of the said news paper is anne| p-1. \<ed wi-rii this petition as Annexure 2. In this, the eli9ibility criter|a, about the age as mentioned jn the advertisement is that as on |l Januoiry, 2004, the candidate should have completed 25 years o{F age, but -Hie age ^iould not be more than 35 years. If the applic^nt is Scheduled Caste/Sdieduled 4- itua^Sia ~=F XI-HC-22 ~s^ ^MM^, ^nl^^Ko, {^<nt1Hy ^IHCfl( $b*lich an^r xi^^ V3?^' -Lo<^|^ f; ^ 200 Rl^^T' ^^r^T f^rioF^n^T s^^ich -M^a ^T^T'^HW^rf^T -2 fl^e Tribe/OBC then the prescribed adverti^ment of respondent No,2 the year 1994. The petitioner who the State service and posted at Budhikhar. Tehsil: Masturi. Distl-. 26.09.1963 and he belongs to prepared thoroughly and hopes for issued another advertisement forj advertjsement No.4/2003. In thi has given exemption of two years t^ a Green Card under the Famil^ respondents have adopted double respondents are discrimirwiting in the Constitution of India. The peti| equal opporlunity in the matter of agefimit for all public employment ground of placeof birth. residenc^ against in respect of, and ony em| State. The petitioner apptied foi| all formalities and sub<ni Scheduled obl<<I<!1<Ill 'W=RJf "^ fe^ <P»i^l< ^73?P<R3IT^T limit will be 40 years. This (s contrary to the rules framed in i^ a Lecturer in English empbyed in 6ovt. Higher Secondary School, Bibspur. His date of birth is Caste category. He has |iis sure success. Respondent No.2 other admjnistrative posts vide advertisement. respondent No.2 those persons who are holders of Welfare Scheme. Thus, the ^olicy for different posts omd the ^he State service which is agoiinst 1-ioner has fundamental ri9ht to get employment. It ought to be equal Thus, no citizen shall only on the \s ineligjble for or djscriininated iloyment or <xny offices under the the post of Civil Judge, Ctass-H (nitt-ed the opplication within the 4- --F =F XI-HC-22 3^?T^T r<rli5b S3!^ $t5^i<=b <if^a '^'^ ^i<<i<rt^, ^^1^4i<o, (^Knt^iy 3^?r xra^ 1^3 < ^5'^ sbKicb""""""""""""""""'"'"'^ 200 7 ) WH^ST^WG^ '^TC^T' ^r^r^nwefN - -3 ^ affer his oblection stipulated period and time with recelved the communication of 07.07.2003 by post vide leUer No| dated 27.06.2003 sent by responde^ts rejected the application form of petitioner's age as on 01.01.2004 'f^^ssTaQe limit. Immediately, P-3), the petitioner had sent his ob|ec1 representation is not being considet'ed. filed this writ petition. 3. The respondents have no r| Sub-Rule (b) of ftule 7 of the Lowej' Conditions of Service) ftules, 1994. computed the age of 1+»e petitio^ Ruies. The age of the petitioner first day of January of the oppointment are invited. It is appointment was invited on 02.0fi.i petitioner must have been comput^d the petitioner's age was below 40 ^rescribed fees. The petitioner i|ejection of application form on |52/A-7/Kecruitment/1796 ftaipur, 2 & 3. Respondents 2 <& 3 have fhe petitioner on the ground that jwiil be more than the prescribed receiving the letter (Annexure on 07.07.2003, but the said I, Therefore, the petitioner has currbnt <!ni<<t<y<<iii 'wT^f '9 'fe1^ <n»t^u '^'3^qf3?n^T t|ght to over ride "rtie provision of Judicial Service (ftecruitment and The respondents ought to have sr according to the said Service r^ust have been computed as on the year in which opplications for jbmit^ed that the application for 3|4.2003. Hence, the age of the as on 01.01.2003. On this date ^ears i.e. 39 years 3 months. It is -4- T- =r XI-HC-22 ^o? '<(l<-|Kyt<t, ^Tll^Ko, fa<rll<i^< 31?i^T,'R=W LP>f%^^ Hi^<r(l ^^^...——.—.•....—..•..—^y^ ^0Q •^^T' ^TI^T^T ^iw^ni^T $^Hich <-<Ka 'STi^T I^TfW^rf^T ^^ _ respond^nts examina11ion Riile therefore, prciyed that the petitioner to appear in the Civil Jud9e, Cbss-II and 1+iey may the order of rejection and applicatj<| 4. The return has been filed which it is mentioned that as per on l day of January of the year, made. It is not the 1st day of 3) applications are invited but actuall^ appointment not the year of invi^ appointment is to be effected in 1}i date has been fjxed as 1st Januarl/ lya Pradesh Public Service in the year 2001 makjng a cut off 2002. It is yery clear from the between 25 to 35 years of age in of age sn case of reserved category he is to be fl^pojnted, Since the application is to be effected in date is 1ST January 2004 as the Ru|es ^j^?n<ilrt 1:TR^if^ ^sl' <n<t<^i< ^>3arP<w3^r may be directed to allow the for recruitment of the post of |be further directed to withdraw |n Annexure P-3. ^n behalf of respondent No,l, in 7 (b) the age to be counted as |n which 1+ie appointment is to be |anuary of the year in which the the relevant date is the year of \'mg the oyplications. Since the year 2004, therefore. cut off 2004. Based on this principte, had issued advertisement for eligibility os on 1st January Irule that the oandidate must be of General category; 40 years on 1st January of the year in which |appointment on the basis of the 2004, therefore the cut off does not contain oiny exemption •tfie Coiimission dbte dase thciyear 4- r"v ~¥ XI-HC-22 %^T^T ^w^ ^n^r $b^Gh ^llixi ^sf ^i^^q^ ^Til^4l€,fa<rtt^y ^gT^W^ \pl; f^^l Hl^^j ^p^^——.....'—.—.—....—...^^p^ ^QQ ' ^ ti,, *^R^T' ^II^TI^TW^cf <<1. for the holders of ^reen Card. NQ gromted. Thus the validity of th| cannot be challenged, therefore, tt| 5. A similar reply has also 2 d 3. 6, I have heard the learned 7, Leamed counsel for the pet} (b) of Rule 7 of Madhya Pradesh A Conditions of Service) Rules, counted from 1s Jomuary of the y4ar appojntment are invi'ted. Accorc|n9 2003, the petitioner being a up to the age limit of 40 years asj he had completed 39 years 3 monlfis the prescribed age limit and his <s^ 8. On the o1+ier hand, learhed appear'ing on behalf of the State/| appearing on behalf of advertisement clearty states tha1| Jonuary, 2004, because the appoi| I exemption of two years age con be ^ rule on tiie ground of inequality |e writ petition be dismissed. filed on behalf of respondents responcjents ^l<1?<y1<fll ^F^f^f^S <f<q^l< ^^OT^II^T b^n coijnsel for the parties. jtioner argued that as per Sub-Rule t|ower Judicial Service (Recruitment |994, the cpplicanfs age must be in which the oppljcations for 1+ie to this Rule as on 1 January Caste candidate was entitled iorescribed in the advertisement as of age. Therefore, he was within »licationhas been rejected wrongly. Additional Advocate ©eneral ^espondent No.l and learned counsel 2 <& 3 submitt-ed that the the age will be applicable as on 1st itments are to be made jn the year Sch^duled -+- .&—3—- -^- XI-HC-22 ^"^':=£|Tq^FT, ^Tii-H^<o, fa^wy 3^?T 'V^S .^L..tQ..^/.. ^ t^ 200 4WH^T$bNtch '^^ar' 3^T^T ^i°b S^f 5^^i^ ^I^a ^il^T ^<!TW^ftn 2004 and this hais been consisten- Public Service Commission had alwc^ the intention behind the rule, The is the main rule and which get the and 1+ie learned counsel appearing emphasis on the Hindi version of tays down thus:- practice is past also. The M.P. fs adopted this proctice only being Hindi version of these rules which pl^ecedence over the English version |>n behalf of the respondents laid tHe rules. Sub-Rule 1^5f of ftule 7 (W) S-STSt- 33T ^ •qft, siw'Btd fwu ^n? ^ ^ft STTg x^ °T^ W? ^ cp<n %i5T oT^t 9. / This Hindi version of rule have completed the age of 25 year| the age of 35 years on 1+ie 1st doE/ 4 appointment is to be made. 10. Having ^eard the leamed cj; 9one through the relevant rules, ij confusion between the English v^i because the Engtish version sciys day of January of the year in whilch ^hfa^ill HW<A ^ fsl<) <Pq^K ^3rf;OT3?1^T f5r<^l<?( Ta1-<y]Rh:1 ^ foT[? 3H^W M&dft utar<<y-^ 'Qpt 25 ^? ^ 3?h? 35 ^Hsf ^ft STTg -^ pr^scribes that the corididate should of age and must not have crossed |f Jonuary of the year in which the bunsel for the parties and having is true that there is a little bit rsion and Hindi version of rules, the OQC will be counted as on 1 the applications are invited for^ trtat q XI-HC-22 7^ v<«^i<n^ ^•al^4i<o, fa<ni<-i^< -^s 3TI^T x^q? ^I+KII «»*ll<3h :.& •^ 200 l^re^r' '3??^T'^T R^l^h 3?1^T s^HiGh <y%a ^ ^IK;^ ^^<liW <il^a -^- t^ "RTR^f ^ fe^ iFat^K cfr3rf;OT^i^?T rNade advertisenrlent respon^ents appointment, whereas the Hindi ve| the age will be counted as on the whidi the appointments are to be of these rules and the Class-H wos issued by the mentioned that the relevant date fl 1st January, 2004. More over, th| being adopted by M.P. Public Ser^ above, since the Pubtic Service notification loying down the conditi| on 1st January, 2004 in consonance of the Rules. 11. Therefore. I am of the opirji contention of the leamed counsel 1 ground 1he petitioner's petition ha^ of granting two years age there is no provision in the rules foj other service rules such provision framed under Article 234 of the <(< Cotimissjon t'sion of the rules lays down that |,rf ctay of Jcmuary of th®year in jade. Looking to -ttiis Hindi version for the post of Civil Judge, 2 & 3 in which it has been >r counting of the age limit will be |s practice has been consistently hce Commission. In view of the has categoricaljy issued a |)n that the age will be counted as ^ith the spirit of the Hindi version ion that there is no force in the for the petitioner and on this no merit. As far as the question ion for ^reen Card holders, since giving such relaxation whereas, in is existin9 and these rules were onstitution of India, I do not find [Tfi^ ^f<S(4 ^ T XI-HC-22 ~S^i ^iMM^ ^Tll^-'Ko, fa<vl^^< 3?I^T,XI^? ..^L^QL^ •^ 200 HI^CII $b*14<^ •^^T' 3^1 "SRT f^ti?F3?i^r ^h^i^ ^i^a gowri any discrimination in thjs regard andjon this count also the petition of the petitioner does not survive, 12. In the result, the petition is d smissed. 13. In view of the above or|er, M.(W).P.No.l865/2003 and I.A.No.6221/2003 stonds dispose^l oji ' / i- \^^1/^ <t»l<lfa^DlNl^<?ff ^ (^^ <Pq^K ^? 3iP^? 3i1^T Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge [^•^g^ /^