CM No.9986 of 2011 & CWP No.2538 of 1994 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.9986 of 2011 & CWP No.2538 of 1994 Date of decision: 23.09.2011 Jagtar Singh ....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present: - Mr. Rajesh K. Dadwal, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner. Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab. 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? ***** ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL) CM No.9986 of 2011 Heard. For the reason stated in the application, CM is allowed, order dated 21.7.2011 is recalled and the petition is restored to its original number. CWP No.2538 of 1994 With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel, present petition is being disposed of finally today. Petitioner has filed present writ petition challenging the order dated 3.1.1994 (Annexure P-2) whereby respondent No.3 was granted promotion to the post of Assistant Revenue Clerk. CM No.9986 of 2011 & CWP No.2538 of 1994 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that as per Rule 5(1)(b) of the Punjab Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Revenue Clerks, State Service Class III Rules 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') in the case of departmental promotion, incumbent shall not be above 35 years of age while on the date of promotion respondent No.3 was more than 35 years of age, therefore, no promotion could have been granted to respondent No.3 in violation of Rule 5(1)(b) of the Rules. Rule 5(1)(b) of the Rules reads as under: - “5(1) No person shall be appointed to the Service who - (a) x x x x (b) in case of Departmental candidate; is more than 35 years of age provided that the appointing authority, may, in special circumstances to be recorded in writing, relax the age limit of 35 years.” From the perusal of Rule 5(1)(b) of the Rules in case of departmental promotion, Government has jurisdiction to grant promotion to the candidate, who is more than 35 years of age after granting relaxation in age for the reasons recorded. Respondents No.1 and 2 have filed written statement to the writ petition. Respondents No.1 and 2 in paragraph No.7 of the written statement have stated as under: - “7. That para No.7 of the Writ petition it is submitted that no doubt age prescribed for promotion to a departmental candidate to the post of Assistant Revenue Clerk age is 35 years, but under rule 5 sub rule (b) of the Punjab Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Revenue Clerks, State Service Class III Rule 1956, the department authority has the powers to relax the CM No.9986 of 2011 & CWP No.2538 of 1994 -3- said age limit in special circumstances. The said rule is already produced in para 5 of writ petition and the same need not to be reproduced again for the sake of repetition. In this regard it may be brought in the kind notice Hon'ble High Court that the respondent No.3 although had crossed 35 years of age at the time of his promotion order vide Annexure P-II, but by virtue of his good record of service and strong recommendation of the Zilladar under whom he was working and who vide his recommendatory note dated 28.10.1993 graded him as very hard working honest and possesses very good knowledge of revenue work, he was given the relaxation in the age and the said facts/reasons finds recorded in the official record which can be produced for perusal of the court if so desired. Hence this para of writ petition is replied accordingly.” From the perusal of paragraph No.7 of the written statement filed by respondents No.1 and 2, it is, thus, clear that Ziladar, under whom respondent No.3 was working, had made a recommendation to the Government to grant him relaxation in age considering hard working, honesty and past track record of respondent No.3. Government having considered recommendation, hard working, honesty and past track record, granted relaxation to respondent No.3 in the upper age limit and thereafter after finding him suitable has promoted respondent No.3. It has been specifically stated that reasons to grant relaxation are recorded in the official record. Petitioner has not filed any rejoinder to the reply filed by the State. In the absence of any rejoinder to the effect that relaxation was not granted for the special reasons recorded, I have no other option except to accept the version of the State Government as stated in paragraph No.7 of the written statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not made any averment in the writ petition too that CM No.9986 of 2011 & CWP No.2538 of 1994 -4- relaxation was wrongly granted to respondent No.3. The only ground taken in the writ petition is that respondent No.3 was granted promotion against Rule 5(1)(b) of the Rules while as per paragraph No.7 of the written statement clear stand of the Government is that respondent No.3 was granted promotion after granting relaxation as per Rule 5(1)(b) of the Rules. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition with liberty to move representation before the authorities to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion. Without expressing any opinion on the merit and maintainability of the representation to be moved by the petitioner, present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with the aforesaid liberty. (Alok Singh) Judge September 23, 2011 R.S.