AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Standing counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
An advertisement was published in ''Vividh Rozgar Carbhan'' on 30.7.2007 for filling up the vacancies with regard to the post or Telegraphic Peon/Mate. The age of the candidates provided in the aforesaid advertisement was between 18 to 32 years.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has already worked in the department for about 8 months arid further that by Government Order dated 21st January, 2000 the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of his power under Article 309 or the Constitution of India has been pleased to enhance the maximum age limit for recruitment on the post of Class IV from 32 to 35 years.
The G.O. dated 21st January, 2000 is as Under:
18% egRoiw.kZ ''kklukns''k fu;qfDr ;ksX;rk,W mRRrj izns''k ljdkj 18@2@81&dk&2@2000 rn~fnukad y[ku� fnukad 21 tuojh] 2000 dkfeZd vuqHkkx vf/klwpuk lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 309 ds ijUrqd ds v/khu ''kfDr dk iz;ksx djds jkT;iky mRrj izns''k lsokvks es HkrhZ �vk;q lhek� fu;ekoyh] 1972 es la''kks/ku djus ds fy, fuEufyf[kr fu;ekoyh cukrs gS A
laf{kIr uke �1� ;g fu;eokyh mRrj izns''k lsokvksa es HkrhZ �vk;q lhek� �uoka la''kks/ku vkSj izkjEHk fu;ekoyh�] 2000 dgh tk;sxh A �2� ;g rqjUr izo''Rr gksxh A
fu;e 2 dk mRrj izns''k esa HkrhZ �vk;q lhek� fu;ekoyh] 1972 esa] uhps LrEHk 1 es fn;s x;s la''kks/ku orZeku fu;e 2 ds es fn;k x;k fu;e j[kk fn;k tk;sxk A &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& LrEHk &1 LrEHk &2 orZeku fu;e ,rn~}kjk izfrLFkkfir fu;e &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& vf/kdre 2- jkT;iky ds fu;e cukus dh 2- jkT;iky ds fu;e cukus dh vk;q lhek ''kfDr ds v/khu ,slh leLr ''kfDr ds v/khu ,slh leLr lsokvks es vkSj inks ij HkrhZ ds lsokvkas esa vkSj inksa ij HkrhZ lEcU/k esa ftuds fy, vf/kdre ds lEcU/k esa ftuds fy, vf/kdre vk;q lhek cRrhl o"kZ gksxh A vk;q lhek cRrhl o"kZ gS vf/kd re vk;q lhek iSrhl o"kZ gksxh A &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& ijUrq tgka mRrj izns''k lsovksa es HkrhZ �vk;qlhek� �vkaBok la''kks/ku� fu;ekoyh] 1991 ds izkjEHk gksus ds iwoZ foKkiu fd;k tk pqdk gS] ogka vf/kdre vk;q lhek ogh gksxh tks fu;ekoyh ds izkjEHk gksus ds iwoZ fon~;eku jgh gks A &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& dkfeZd vuqHkkx&2 22@15@86&dk&2@95 y[ku� fnukad% 18 Qjojh] 1995 fo"k;% lEkLr foHkkxks esa fu;qfDr gsrq f[kykM+h;ks dks ''kkfjjhd ;ksX;rk es NwV fn;k tkuk A
mijksDr lanHkZ esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ''k gqvk gS fd lHkh yksd lsovksa@inksa ij HkrhZ ds fy, ''kkfjjhd ;ksX;rk dk fu/kZkj.k laxr lsok fu;ekoyh ;k iz''kklfud vkns''kks esa fd;k tkrk gSA
2- �kklu }kjk ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd leLr foHkkxks esa HkrhZ gsrq f[kykM+h;ks dks ''kkjhfjd ;ksX;rk] vkfn fu/kkZfjr gks] es NwV nsus gsrq lgkuqHkwfriwoZd fopkj fd;k tk; A mDr fu.kZ; ds fdz;kUo;u gsrq laxr lsok fu;ekoyh esa rnkuqlkj la''kks/ku fd;k tkuk vko;''d gS] rkfd fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh }kjk lacaf/kr in ij HkrhZ ds le; bl izdkj dh NwV nsrs gq, HkrhZ dh izfdz;k iw.kZ djkbZ tk lds A
3- d`I;k mijksDrkuqlkj leqfpr dk;Zokgh lqfuf''pr djus dk d"V djsa A
vkj-ch- Hkk"dj] lfpo A
It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that cine, the petitioner has worked in the department for about 8 months, he in ay be given relaxation in age in view of the aforesaid G.O.
It appears that the age of the petitioner at present it about 40 years. Even if he is granted relaxation in age for the period of 8 months of work which he has put in the service of the department he would not be entitled to apply for the said post under the aforesaid advertisement.
In so far as the G.O. dated 21st January, 2000 is concerned, it provides maximum age limits 35 years for application by the candidates for appointment i.e. authority could have fixed the maximum age up to 32 years earlier and up to 35 years now for considering applications from the eligible candidates. A perusal of the impugned advertisement shows that the applications were invited from the candidates between 18 to 32 years of age, which is well within 35 years of age. The maximum age limit of 35 years is provided in the aforesaid G.O. and is not contrary to it.
There is no illegality or infirmity in the advertisement impugned in the writ petition.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed.