CWP NO. 8492 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 28.1.2009 Darshan Kaur ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab & Another …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.P.S.Goraya, Advocate for the petitioner Ms.Charu Tuli, Sr.DAG, Punjab Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The respondents issued an advertisement dated 1.10.2006 inviting applications on prescribed format for recruitment on the post of Teacher and Block Primary Education Officer. Besides prescribing educational qualifications, under clause 8 of the advertisement notification, the age for recruitment as on 1.1.2006 was prescribed between 18 to 37 years and age concession for five years was for Scheduled Castes/Tribes and other backward classes candidates. However, for inservice candidates serving in the Punjab Government or in another Government or Central Government, the age was 45 years. The petitioner applied for the aforesaid post, but she has not been selected. The final merit list is Annexure P-14. It is admitted case of the petitioner that on the crucial date i.e. 1.1.2006, the age of the CWP NO. 8492 of 2007 2 petitioner was 48 years. The petitioner has accordingly approached this Court seeking a direction for consideration on the ground that she was eligible under the advertisement notification, including on the question of age, as according to the petitioner, she was entitled to five years age relaxation being a Scheduled Caste candidate and for this, reliance is placed not only Clause 8 of the advertisement notification but also on the government letter dated 24.1.1979 (Annexure P-2) which, inter alia, provides as under:- “I am directed to refer to the subject cited above and to say that age concessions as under over and above the age limit prescribed for appointment in services under the State Government are available for the categories as mentioned against each:- 2.Scheduled Castes/Backward Classes 5 years over and above the normal recruitment age. Xxxx xxxx In the reply filed by the respondents, it is specifically stated that in terms of Clause 8 of the advertisement notification, five years age relaxation has been granted over and above the maximum prescribed age of 37 years to the candidates of reserved categories. However, for inservice candidates, the uniform age is prescribed upto 45 years. It is contended on behalf of the respondents that inservice candidates must have already availed the benefit of relaxation being given to the reserved categories candidates while entering into government service and thus they are not entitled to avail the benefit again for the age relaxation while seeking appointment as inservice candidate. There is substance in the contention raised by the respondents. The petitioner being an inservice scheduled caste candidate must have got the benefit when she entered into the service and CWP NO. 8492 of 2007 3 she being an inservice candidate is not entitled to further age relaxation in terms of the aforesaid advertisement. I do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 28.1.2009 MFK NOTE:Whether to be referred to reporter or not:NO