FANINDRAKUMAR LAXMAN BAGHELE Vs. ZILLA PARISHAD BHANDARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition two questions fall for determination. First one is whether the petitioner an employee on contract basis since 20102010 can be treated as employee previously in Zilla Parishad service so as to enable him to claim extended age of 45 years while applying for the recruitment. Second question is whether the application submitted for the employment by the petitioner was in accordance with the stipulation in Clause 11 of the recruitment advertisement dated 31.10.2015.

(2.) The last date for submission of application was 13.11.2015 and the petitioner applied on 06.11.2015. Insofar as the provision for age is concerned, it is contended by the learned Advocate for the petitioner that the petitioner though belonging to Other Backward Class category has applied in open category and therefore the age of recruitment for the petitioner is 33 years and if he is above 33 years his application cannot be looked into. The learned Advocate for the petitioner, however, has relied upon Clause 7.2.g of the advertisement to demonstrate that if such person is already in the employment of the Zilla Parishad or the State Government, he should be below 45 years of age on the last date stipulated for making of an application i.e. on 13.11.2015. In the present matter, the petitioner admittedly was below 39 years of age on the said date.

(3.) Learned Advocate Shri Naik for the petitioner further submits that the experience certificate dated 26.10.2015 showing that the petitioner has been working from 20102010 with Zilla Parishad on contract basis in Water Supply Department is filed along with that application. No objection given by the Competent Authority (Executive Engineer) of the Water Supply Department on 15.10.2015 has also been supplied. He invites our attention to the assertion in Writ Petition to demonstrate that all these documents form part of the application. Learned Advocate for the petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union Public Service Commission v. Dr. Jamuna Kurup & Ors. reported at AIR 2008 Supreme Court 2463, particularly paragraph 13 therein to submit that the Hon'ble Apex Court has found that no distinction can be made in regular employee or temporary employee or employee on contract basis. He, therefore, submits that the rejection of application on the ground that the petitioner is over 38 years of age is erroneous.