CWP No.14744 of 2008 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Date of decision: 23.03.2009. Harjinder Kaur ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICER PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.SK Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.VK Shukla, Advocate, for the respondents. -- PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): The petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 12.08.2008 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Dev.)-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Muktsar, whereby the services of the petitioner have been terminated on the ground that at the time of recruitment the age of the petitioner was more than 37 years . Briefly stated, the fact as available on the record are that respondent No.2 issued an advertisement notice in “the Tribune” dated 27.05.2006 (Annexure P-1), inviting applications for appointment of 9384 teachers in Primary Schools in the rural areas of Punjab. The recruitment was to be made school-wise which was nontransferable. As per the notice, the educational qualifications prescribed, were 10 plus two or equivalent diploma as recognised by CWP No.14744 of 2008 -2- the Punjab Government with ETT and in case of non-availability of the said candidates, the candidates with BA/B.Sc./B.Com. and B.Ed. qualifications were to be considered. The advertisement notice further provides the age of the candidate between 18 to 37 years with 5 years relaxation in the upper age limit in the case of S.Cs, B.Cs; 10 years in case of handicapped and number of years put in service plus 3 years in case of Ex-servicemen. The age was to be calculated on 1.1.2006. The applications were required to be made by 08.06.2006. The petitioner applied in response to the aforesaid advertisement and came to be selected/appointed as ETT Teacher vide letter dated 22.12.2006 (Annexure P-6). The petitioner joined service. While the petitioner was serving, a Show Cause Notice dated 01.08.2008 (Annexure P-8) was served upon the petitioner. It was alleged in the said Show Cause Notice that the petitioner's age at the time of recruitment was 38 years, 5 months and 15 days as on 01.01.2006, whereas the age for recruitment prescribed by the government was 37 years as on 1.1.2006. Petitioner's reply was solicited. The petitioner submitted her reply dated 12.08.2008 (Annexure P-9). In reply to the Show Cause Notice the petitioner denied all the allegations. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner has been terminated vide the impugned order dated 12.08.2008 (Annexure P-10). The stand of the respondents in the reply is that the age of the petitioner at the time of recruitment was more than 38 years as on 01.01.2006, whereas the prescribed age at the time of recruitment for CWP No.14744 of 2008 -3- the post in question was 37 years. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. The short point involved for consideration in the present writ petition is as to whether at the time of recruitment, the age prescribed for appointment was 37 years or more? Recruitment to the service is governed and regulated by the statutory rules, namely, The Punjab Panchayati Raj Primary Teachers (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”). Rule 9 of the Rules deals with the recruitment age, which reads as under:- “9. Age: (1) No person shall be recruited to the Service by direct appointment, if he is less than eighteen years or is more than thirty seven years of age on the Ist day of January of the year immediately preceding the last date fixed for submission of applications or unless he is within such range of minimum and maximum age limits, as may be specifically fixed by the Punjab Government from time to time: Provided that in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and other Backward Classes, the upper age limit shall be such as may be fixed by the Punjab Government from time to time. CWP No.14744 of 2008 -4- (2) In the case of Ex-servicemen, the upper age limit shall be such, as has been prescribed in the Punjab Recruitment of Ex- servicemen Rules, 1982, as amended from time to time.” From the aforesaid rule, it appears that the age for recruitment as on Ist January of the year is 37 years. Sub Rule (2) of Rule 9 of the Rules, further provides that in the case of Ex-servicemen, the upper age limit shall be such, as has been prescribed in the Punjab Recruitment of Ex-servicemen Rules, 1982 as amended from time to time. The State Government has also issued circular dated 24.09.1996 (Annexure P-3). Vide the aforesaid circular, the government decided to enhance the upper age limit of the teachers from 35 years to 42 years. The upper age limit was again reduced from 42 years to 37 years by the government vide another circular dated 15.11.2006 (Annexure P-4). Since the age as on 01.01.2006 was to be considered, the last circular dated 15.11.2006 (Annexure P-4) is not applicable and it is the circular dated 24.09.1996 (Annexure P-3) which was operational at the time of the recruitment of the petitioner. Rule 9 of the Rules referred to above clearly provides that the maximum age limit may be fixed by the government from time to time. This Rule itself conferred powers upon the State Government to change the upper age limit from time to time. In exercise of powers under Rule 9 of the Rules, the State CWP No.14744 of 2008 -5- Government can fix upper age limit from time to time. The State has enhanced the upper age limit from 37 years to 42 years in case of the teachers vide Annexure P-3. At the time of recruitment of the petitioner, her age was more than 37 years but less than 42 years. Thus, she was fully eligible to apply for the post in question. While passing the impugned order, this aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration at all. The impugned order is, thus, not sustainable in law. In view of the above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 12.08.2008 (Annexure P-10) is hereby quashed. By virtue of the interim order dated 21.08.2008 passed by this Court, operation of the impugned order had been stayed and the petitioner is continuing in service. Hence, interim order dated 21.08.2008 is also made absolute. 23.03.2009. (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to the Reporter? YES