Mw IN THE HON'BLE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G) W.P.(S)NO. 6 ^^7 OF 2009 PETITIONER Gajanand Kashyap, aged about 35 years, S/o Ramkishun Kashyap, R/o Mulmula, Tahsil- Pamgarh, District-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^ ^o.'';-\?^'"" ^i^?y ,^^-" / 3. ^^,.. 0" :1; State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Co-operative Department, D.K.S. Bhawan Mantralaya, Raipur(C.G-) 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Nehru Chowk, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District- Bilaspur(C.G-) Chairman, Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit Mulmula, Tahsil-Pamgarh, District-Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 4. Branch Manager, Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Pamgarh, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 5. Komal Singh, aged about 26 years, S/o Fatte Singh Thakur, R/o Village-Mulmula, Tahsil- Pamgarh, District-Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA 33 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) N0.6957 OF 2009 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Gajanand Kashyap Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :• Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ajit Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State. Shri S.L. Kurmi, Advocate for the respondent No.2, 3 & 4. Shri Sushobhit Singh, Advocate for the respondent No.5. ORDER (ORAU (Passed on this 29th day of March, 2011) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to quash the proposal dated ^- 10/10/2009 (Annexure P/1), whereby the name of the petitioner could not be recommended on the ground that his age was more than 35 years, as prescribed in the advertisement. 2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner, are that the Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank, Maryadit, Bilaspur/respondent No.2 issued an advertisement dated 06/10/2009 (Annexure P/2) for appointment on the post of Sanvida Samiti Sahayak. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner along with other eligible candidates made application for selection and appointment for the said post. 3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the petitioner was selected in the written test and he was called for interview. However, when the recommendation 10/10/2009 (Annexure P/1) was made, name of the petitioner was not recommended on the ground that his age was more than the maximum age timit prescribed in the advertisement. Thus, this petition. 4. Shri Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner is entitled to benefit of two years age relaxation ^^?^-^^^ ^': '"^ ^ ]B 4t) as per circular dated 16/09/2008 (Annexure P/4) issued by the Government of Chhattisgarh, General Administration Department, Raipur. If the two years relaxation is granted in case of the petitioner, the petitioner would be eligible for consideration, as the petitioner was few months more than 35 years on the date of making the application. On the other hand, Shri Ajit Singh, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State, Shri Kurmi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2, 3 & 4 and Shri Sushobhit Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.5, submit that the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit under the circular dated 16/09/2008, as sub-clause (b) of clause 3 of the circular, clearly provides that in case of examination conducted by the Public Service Commission (for short "the PSC"), two years additional relaxation would be granted to the candidates, as the PSC could not hold examination for the year 2008-09 and 2009-10. The present selection process was not conducted by the PSC, but by the respondent Bank. Thus, the circular dated 16/09/2008 would not be applicable in the case of the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and the documents appended thereto, sub-clause (b) of clayse 3 ofthe circular dated 16/09/2008 reads as under: "(sf) f^TRT cfqT ^ ofTcf^ ^cn- ^TqW ^KT \rT^T ^clT TT^'§TT Pi-y^d ^T ^ srnfri^T "-^ ^?r ^rr ^t t, Rd^c^ Lhd^<1^4 'f^PT ^RT/^PTr ^ ^fr^ ^"m" ^TPftTT ^t TT?t'STT t^ yoJPl^^l^ ^ ^TT^ PfcllR-1^' ^?f TfPT ^t <^f^'i|d ^^ |^, ^Ttcf) ^cTT 3TT^tTT c^ cT^ 2008-09 cT^TT 2009-10 ^ ^ crr^r ^pr^r ^tsTT^Tf ^, y^Tt^-i^i^ c^ ^rMU piqjR-1^' ^ f^- ^'rtR^T 3Tf^^ ^3TT5 ^rN" 35 ^ TT 2 ^ ^t ^RlRcM ^ ^-rft | T^- ^ srfSR^ 3TTg ^TT 35 ^ ^ ST^rf^T' Y^fT (STSI^T 7?sn^iN P|C||R^<L|N|" ^ ^ ^r ^^TTsft ^; 3TT^ ^frTT ^f 37 ^ ^ft) |" 3 t\\ •^ 9. 10. On bare perusal of the relevant clause as afforested, makes it clear that the additional relaxation was granted to those candidates who could not appear in the examination conducted by the PSC on account of the fact that the examination could not take place in the year 2008-09 and 2009-10. There is no dispute that the selection and appointment in question in the instant petition, is for the post of Sanvida Samiti Sahayak, conducted by the Zila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Bilaspur, a society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act. !n view of the above, the first contention of the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled for two years relaxation on the basis of above- stated circular, is rejected being not applicable to the facts of the case. The second contention of the petitioner that in the recommendation list, it has been mentioned (v3^^' but no remark has been made against the name of the petitioner. It is not necessary to mention about his performance or qualification in column, as he was found over age for the said selection process, as being more than 35 years at the time of filling up application form. Accordingly, the writ petition, being bereftof merit, is liable to and is herebydismissed. No order asto costs. - Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Arun