(1.) IN the year 2004, in pursuance to the advertisement (Annexure P -4) Petitioner had applied for selection to the post of Master in English in the Respondent College. At that time, Petitioner was working on ad -hoc basis on the post of Master in English, which is a Gazetted Group -B post with the Respondent College. Vide letter of 22nd December, 2005, (Annexure P -6), Petitioner was called upon to appear for the interview for the said post and to produce her experience certificate, etc. Petitioner had claimed age relaxation on the basis of 'No Objection Certificate' of 6th August, 2004, (Annexure P -5), which disclosed that the Petitioner was working as Master in English on ad -hoc basis since April 2001 with break in service in each year.
(2.) WHEN the Petitioner had appeared for interview on 23rd January, 2006, she was purportedly told that she was not Government Employee as per the new Rules of Department of Personnel Training (hereinafter referred to as 'DoPT'). According to the Petitioner, Respondent Commission was not justified in refusing to interview the Petitioner on the basis of Communications of 31st December, 2002 (inadvertently referred to as of the year Rs.2005') and of 5th December, 2005 of 'DoPT' (Annexure P -7). It is pointed out that communication of 5th December, 2005 indicates that it has to be uniformly applied to the regular as well as ad -hoc employees. According to the Petitioner, exclusion of ad -hoc government employees for the grant of age relaxation on the basis of Communication (Annexure P -7) is not only illegal but is also arbitrary, as age relaxation has been already granted to one Mr. Satyendra Mishra, who had worked on ad -hoc basis.
(3.) THE relief sought in this petition is of quashing of the Communication (Annexure P -7) denying benefit of age relaxation to the Petitioner by arbitrarily drawing a line of distinction between the ad -hoc and regular employees. The alternate relief sought is of regularization of the Petitioner as Master in English in the Respondent - College.