NIRMALABEN J GAMETI Vs. CHIEF MATROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AHMEDABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts which led to the filing of the writ petition are that the petitioner herein is a member of the Scheduled Tribe. The respondent No.1 i.e. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ahmedabad issued an advertisement dated 18.8.90 in the News Paper for recruitment to Class III and IV posts and invited applications from eligible candidates for the same, which were to be sent within seven days of the said advertisement. The petitioner, being H.S.C. qualified applied for the post of Clerk in pursuance to the said advertisement. As far as the eligibility criteria was concerned, the petitioner fulfilled all criteria. Regarding the criteria of age, the advertisement stipulated that the age of a candidate should be 18 to 25 years and persons belonging to Scheduled Tribe/Schedule Caste, Handicapped and Ex-servicemen category etc. would be given relaxation in age according to Rules. At the time of the advertisement the petitioner was about 28 years and 3 months of age i.e. above the age of 25 years. However since the petitioner belongs to the category of Scheduled Tribe, as such she was entitled to get the benefit of the relaxation of age as per the Recruitment Rules for the Recruitment to Class III and IV Services in the Subordinate Judicial Services, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"). The relevant rule with regard to relaxation of age is Rule 13(4), which, as reproduced in the petition, is quoted as under:

(2.) Since the date of birth of the petitioner is stated to be 19.5.62,the petitioner was within the relaxed age limit at the time of the issuance of the advertisement i.e. on 18.8.90 and on the first day of the month immediately following the month in which the period of 90 days from the date of publication of the advertisement, the petitioner was about 28 years and 7 months of age. The relaxation admissible to the petitioner being that of 5 years, for the purpose of availing this benefit the petitioner should have been not above 30 years of age at the time of application. Admittedly the petitioner fulfilled this norm.

(3.) On the basis of the application submitted by the petitioner, she was called for an interview and typing test and ultimately came to be selected. She was placed at Sr.No.20 in the select list prepared by the respondent-authority and she was informed about this fact through a letter dated 30.9.1991. A perusal of this communication reveals that while informing the petitioner regarding her placement at Sr.No.20 in the select list, it has also been stipulated that the future vacancies which may arise would be filled up in a serial-wise manner from this select list.