Mahesh Kumar Verma vs State of U.P. and others

Arun Tandon, J.—Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the State-respondents.

The petitioner applied for the post of junior clerk under the category of a retrenched employee. The petitioner''s case was not considered by the Selection Committee. He filed a representation and thereafter approached this Court by filing a writ petition, wherein a direction was issued to the authority concerned to decide his representation. The authority by an order dated 25th January, 2002 rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he was not a retrenched employee and therefore, he could not be considered for the post of junior clerk within that category. Hence, the present writ petition.

The present writ petition was earlier decided by the writ court vide order dated 11th April, 2005 and it was held that even after granting relaxation of age, as claimed by the petitioner, he was overage and therefore, it was not necessary to enter into the issue as to whether the petitioner was a retrenched employee or not. Not being satisfied with the order of the writ court, petitioner filed Special Appeal No. 681 of 2005. The Division Bench, after setting aside the order of the writ court vide judgment and order dated 22nd February, 2010, provided that the matter may be re-examined in light of the observation made in the judgment. The Division Bench has noticed that in terms of the Government order dated 27th March. 1982, petitioner was entiteld to relaxation in the outer age limit, in addition to the relaxation of five years provided for Other Backward Class Category candidates to which the petitioner belongs. Accordingly, the present writ petition has come up for consideration again before this Court today.

From the facts as they exist on record, it is apparent that the petitioner on the date of filing of his application form had disclosed his age as 42 years, 6 months and two days. The outer age limit prescribed for any other candidate was 35 years for the post in question. After adding relaxation of five years provided for in favour of Other Backward Class Category candidates like the petitioners, the outer age limit would stand extended to 40 years.

The benefit of age relaxation, as claimed by the petitioner because of his having worked as census employee need be examined in that background. Government order dated 27th March, 1982 provides that census employee shall be entitled to age relaxation for the actual period he has worked in the census department and outer limit period for the same has been fixed as 3 years. Meaning thereby that the relaxation in the age is to be provided with reference to the actual period spent on duty as census employee, the maximum period for the purpose has been fixed as 3 years. Therefore, an employee like the petitioner, who has actually worked only two years, five months and 17 days is entitled to benefit of such number of days only in the matter of relaxation in the outer age limit. It would be seen that the petitioner was admittedly beyond the prescribed age by nearly one month on the date of making of the application, i.e., even after adding the benefit of age relaxation provided for the Other Backward Class Category candidates plus the age relaxation provided for under the Government order dated 27th March, 1982 or 5th June, 1980 in respect of the period actually spent on service as census employee.

The same flows from the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Union of India and others Vs. Dinesh Kumar Saxena and others, wherein after considering the entire law on the subject it has been observed as : "For this purpose the length of temporary service of such employees in the Directorate of Census Operations should be considered for relaxing the age bar, if any for such appointment."

In view of the aforesaid, this Court finds no good ground to interfere in the matter.

The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed.