HAMIDAKHATOON Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEVI Prasad Singh, J. This writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred against the order of termination as well as denial on the part of the State Government to grant age relaxation for the petitioner's appointment, though she was selected and her name found place in the waiting list.

(2.) THE brief facts of the present case are that by an order dated 17. 3. 1986 (Annexure-1), the petitioner was engaged in the work-charge establishment on the consolidated salary of Rs. 250/ -. Since March, 1986, the petitioner has been continuing to discharge duty in the work-charge establishment in the cadre of Junior Clerk. In the year 1989, selection against the regular post of Junior Clerk was held and a select list was released. According to the petitioner's Counsel the petitioner was selected on the post of Junior Clerk, though it has been stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner's name was in the waiting list An appomtment letter dated 18. 7. 1991 (Annexure-2) was issued permitting the petioner to discharge duty. In consequence there of, the petitioner joined duty on An undertaking was given by the petitioner that her joining shall be subject to relaxation in age granted by the State Government. It appears that the matter was referred to the State Government for grant of relaxation in age but the State Government declined to grant such relaxation in age. An order was commu nicated by letter dated 27. 8. 1991 (Annexure-10 to the Counter affidavit), in conse quence whereof, by office memorandum dated 18. 9. 1991 (Annexure- 4 to the writ petition), the petitioner's services were terminated in pursuance to the power conferred by U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975 (in short here in after referred to as "rules" ). Feeling aggrieved with the im pugned order of termination and denial on the part of the State Government to relax the age, present frit petition has been preferred.

(3.) HOWEVER, while assailing the impugned action, the petitioner's Counsel stated that the matter as to whether the controversy relates to a person whose name finds place in the select list or waiting list shall not make any difference, once the right to livelihood is concerned, more so when wait listed person comes in the field of eligibility for appointment on account of arising of vacancy. Relax ation in age is granted to persons who are serving in the department like the petitioner and denying the same amounts to hostile discrimination. It has also been submitted that since the petitioner was selected in accordance with law by the newly constituted Selection Committee, even if her name was found place in the waiting list, denial of appointment only because of overage is neither reason able nor just and proper. The petitioner's Counsel has relied upon an Apex Court's decision reported in (2007)2 SCC 611, Yamuna Shunkar Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and others. I have considered the arguments, advanced by the parties' Counsel at length.