IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.1500 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 02.04.2009 Dr.Satpal and others ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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? *** Present:- Mr.Dharmender Singh Rawat, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Narender Sura, AAG, Haryana for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.H.N.Mehtani, Advocate for respondent No.3. *** M.M.KUMAR, J. The Haryana Public Service Commission on the requisition of the respondent-State had issued an Advertisement dated 3.1.2009 (Annexure P-1) for recruitment to one permanent post of Assistant Director Ayurveda (Group-B) in Health and Ayush Department, Haryana. The maximum age prescribed is 45 years as on 1.1.2009 along with other qualifications. The petitioners do not fulfill the maximum age criteria as everyone of them is above 45 years of age. According to Rule 9 of the Haryana Ayurvedic Department (Group-B) Service Rules, 1989 (for C.W.P.No.1500 of 2009 -2- brevity 'the Service Rules'), the recruitment could be made by direct recruitment or by promotion or even by transfer. As per the criteria prescribed by Rule 5 (viii) of the Service Rules, the maximum age prescribed is 45 years. The petitioners have claimed that according to Rule 17 of the Service Rules, there is power of relaxation which should be exercised in favour of the petitioners. The respondents have filed the written statement admitting the broad factual position. It has been asserted that the relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the eligibility of a candidate has to be determined as per the date given in the advertisement. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the petitioners cannot claim relaxation of upper age limit under Rule 17 of the Rules as a matter of right nor it could be argued that there is a hostile discrimination merely because the respondent-State has in other services granted relaxation in age while making direct recruitment. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Raja Lakshmiah vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1967 SC 993. The petitioners were admittedly beyond the age of 45 years as on 1.1.2009. There is, thus, no merit in the petition. Dismissed. ( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE April 02, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE