Richa Mishra vs State Of Chhatisgarh & Ors

The issue which arises for consideration in the present appeal pertains to the appointment for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (hereinafter referred to as the 'Dy.S.P.'). Though, the appellant herein had participated in the selection process and she not only qualified at each stage of the examination process, her name was still not included in the list of successful candidates for the said post. The reason given was that as per the Chhattisgarh Police Executive (Gazetted) Service Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as Rules, 2000), upper age limit for appointment to the post of Dy.S.P. was 25 years and she had already crossed the said age limit, and therefore, she was rendered ineligible for the post in question.

2. This decision of the respondents in not appointing the appellant as Dy. S.P. was challenged by the appellant by filing the writ petition in the High Court of Chhattisgarh on the ground that she was entitled to the benefit of age relaxation on account of being Government Servant. It may be noted at this juncture that she was appointed as Excise Sub Inspector, Bilaspur after clearing the CG combined Competitive Examination, 2003 (which is also called State Services Examination, 2003). She, thus, claimed that she was a Government Servant and on that ground she claimed age relaxation as per Rule 8 of the Rules, 2000. However, her writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge holding that she entered the Government job vide appointment order dated 21.04.2006 which was after the cut-off date as 01.01.2006 for the post of Dy.S.P. and, therefore, was not entitled to the benefit of age relaxation. The appellant filed the writ appeal before the Division Bench and claimed benefit of age relaxation under Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Special Provision for appointment of women) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 1997'). However, even on this ground she has not succeeded as the High Court vide impugned judgment dated March 10, 2010 has dismissed the writ appeal.

We would like to point out at this stage that number of writ petitions were filed in the High Court which were taken up by the learned single Judge analogously and decided by the common judgment dated November 16, 2009. Whereas some writ petitions including that of the appellant herein was dismissed and some other writ petitions were allowed by the learned single Judge holding that in their cases they were entitled to age relaxation and, therefore, select list should have been prepared on the basis of merit treating those persons to be within age limit. The Government had filed writ appeals challenging outcome of such writ petitions in favour of those candidates. These appeals were also taken up by the Division Bench along with the appeal of the appellant herein. The High Court has allowed those appeals holding that even such persons were not entitled to the benefit of age relaxation. We make it clear that we shall be eschewing the discussion in respect of those cases which obviously is not necessary.

Coming to the case of the appellant herein, seminal facts which need to be recorded for deciding the controversy are recapitulated below:

The appellant challenged the aforesaid order of the learned single Judge by filing the writ appeal. In this writ appeal, she did not pursue her case for age relaxation upto eight years on the ground that she was a Government Servant. Instead she relied upon Rule 4 of Rules 1997 wherein relaxation of ten years is available to women candidates in addition to other relaxation in age. The Division Bench has held that benefit of Rule 4 of Rules 1997 shall not enure to her benefit and the entire discussion in support of this conclusion is contained in paras 52 and 53 of the impugned judgment which are reproduced hereunder in entirety:

Note (1) Candidates who are admitted to the selection under the age concession mentioned in sub-clause(i) and (ii) of clause (c) and clause(i) above shall not be eligible for appointment if after submitting the application they resign from the service either before or after the selection. They will however continue to be eligible if they are retrenched from the service or post after submitting the application.

may not be very appropriate. There are number of social justice legislations giving special protection and benefits to vulnerable groups in the society. Prof. Madhava Menon describes it eloquently:

…...……..................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi;

February 08, 2016