LAWS(ORI)-1990-11-25

SADASIBA NAYAK Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

Decided On November 27, 1990
Sadasiba Nayak Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ORISSA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a matriculate of T%9. He has been a Khalasi ever since 1372, He has been so employed as art N. M. R. workman. Placed thus he was looking forward to some improve - ment in his working condition and with this end in view he got his name registered in the Employment Exchange of Kamakshyanagar. It seems, that at one point of time luck. smiled on him as he was called for interview for the post of Assistant; Tax Collector on 25 -6 -1986 and was ultimately selected for the post finding him suitable after relaxing the age limit. The Order of appointment was passed by the Bhuban Notified Area Council and the petitioner joined on 30 -6 -1986. As, however, under the second proviso to Rule 408 of the Orissa Municipal Rules, 1953, the relaxation of age limit has to receive prior approval of the State Government, the matter was referred to the Government and a communication was received from the Additional Secretary, Housing and Urban Development Department, that the approval had not been given. This led to the termination of the service of the petitioner on 9 -12 -1986, Hence the approach so this Court.

(2.) IT is submitted by Shri Patibhat no reason has been assigned for not giving approval to the relaxation of age limit by the Government. Our attention is drawn to the case of Ratanlal v. State of Karyana (AIR 1987 SC 478) in which it was observed that in such cases the State Government should sympathetically consider the question of relaxing the qualification of maximum age prescribed for appointment to the posts in question.

(3.) AS in the present case, the petitioner was working as N. M. R. as on for long 14 years before he was selected for the post of Assistant Tax Collector, and as he was over aged by about a few years, and as would gel no further chance to improve his lot, we are of the view that this was a fit case where relaxation of age ought to have been granted. We would, therefore, remit the case to Government to pass appropriate orders within three months from today keeping in view the observations made by us.