GOVIND MASKHARE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 21/6/2016 delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 1936 of 2012 whereby the writ petition filed by the Appellant/Petitioner praying for relaxation of age has been rejected primarily on two grounds. Firstly, that the petition was barred by principles of delay and laches and secondly that the Appellant took a chance to appear in the interview and after having appeared in the interview, he could not be permitted to challenge the selection process.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Appellant who was working as Data Entry Operator filed a writ petition on 5/3/2012 praying that the Respondents/State be directed to consider his candidature by granting him relaxation in age equivalent to number of years the Appellant had served the State on contract basis as Data Entry Operator. He also prayed that his case is squarely covered by the judgment delivered in Writ Petition (S) No. 2711 of 2009 on 29/3/2012. The Appellant was initially appointed as Communication Assistant (Sanchar Sahayak) in the Public Works Department of Government of Chhattisgarh on 9/12/2000. Thereafter, on 9/10/2006, the Appellant was appointed as Data Entry Operator initially for a period of one year but he continued to work on the said post. Thereafter, the Respondents issued an advertisement on 5/2/2009 inviting applications for Data Entry Operator on regular basis. In this advertisement, the upper age limit was prescribed as 35 years. However, it was mentioned that even after relaxation the upper age limit would not be beyond 38 years. The Appellant alongwith other employees made a representation to the Department immediately after issuance of the advertisement in the year 2009 in which it was submitted that when they entered service as contractual employees, they were below the upper age limit but now they are beyond the age limit. On this representation, the order passed is "put up proposal for all such cases". However, no order was ever conveyed to the Appellant. Though, the advertisement was issued in the year 2009, call letters were issued for tests and interview only on 28/4/2012. Even before the results of the interview were issued, the Appellant approached this Court seeking a direction that the Respondents be directed to consider his candidature by giving him relaxation in age in terms of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (S) No. 2711 of 2009 decided on 29/3/2012. In this writ petition, following detailed order was passed on 8/5/2012 by the learned Single Judge of this Court and the operative portion of the said order reads as follows:

(3.) Thereafter, the Appellant appeared in the test and it is not disputed that he was at serial No. 5 in the merit list but was not offered appointment only on the ground that he had crossed the maximum age limit.