RAMKELI Vs. SOUTH EASTERN COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order Annexure P-1 dated 07.11.2020 whereby the petitioner's candidature for appointment under the scheme for dependent employment has been rejected. The reason for rejecting the candidature of the petitioner was that when the petitioner was subjected to age determination it was found that she was more than 47 and ½ years of age and whereas the maximum upper age limit for grant of employment is 45 years under the respondents.

(2.) The ground of challenge by the petitioner is that applying the doctrine of relating back petitioner's age should had been considered on the date when the petitioner first approached the respondents for grant of appointment and if not at least the age at which the petitioner had approached this High Court for appropriate direction to the respondents. According to the petitioner both when she had first applied for dependent employment so also when she had approached this High Court in the earlier round of litigation i.e. by WPS 3092/2013, she was well within the permissible age limit for grant of employment. However, the writ petition could only be disposed of on 10.12.2019 and therefore the pendency of the writ petition for a considerable period of time before the High Court should not be the hurdle in the case of petitioner from being denied employment.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Inderchand Jain (Dead) through LRS. Vs. Motilal (Dead) Through LRS., 2009 14 SCC 663 in this regard highlighting the observations of the Supreme Court wherein it says that the doctrine of relating back has to be considered on the date of institution of suit.