H.KHAWLIANA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. I have also heard Mr. J.C. Lalnunsanga, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 and Mr. F. Lalengliana, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 6.

(2.) The case of the petitioner in brief is that he responded to the Advertisement dated 23.07.2018 (Annexure-2) issued by the Secretary, Mizoram Public Service Commission (MPSC), inviting application for appointment to the four (4) vacant posts of Circle Education Officer under the School Education Department of the State Government. The eligibility criteria amongst others was that aspiring applicants should not be below 21 years and above 35 years of age as on 27.08.2018. Further, in respect of SC/ST candidates, 5 years concession on the upper age limit was also permissible.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that although the respondent No. 6, who also responded to the advertisement was found to be overaged and her application rejected vide Communication dated 11.07.2019 (Annexure-3) but when the recommendation of the selected candidates was published by the MPSC vide Notification dated 18.12.2019 (Annexure-5), the respondent No. 6 was placed at Serial No. 2 in order of merit while the petitioner was placed at Serial No. 1 in the panel list. The respondent authority concerned by invoking the relaxation clause provided under Rule 8 of the Mizoram Education and Human Resources Department (Group 'B' post) Recruitment Rules, 1995 (Rules of 1995 for short) in respect of those employed under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) relaxed the upper age limit of five (5) persons including respondent No. 6 to make them eligible to participate in the selection process. According to the petitioner, the Notification dated 02.09.2019 is only belated and an afterthought since the examination for selection to the post in question had already been conducted w.e.f 27th to 29th August, 2019. As the petitioner was aggrieved with the action of the respondent authority concerned, he submitted a representation before the respondent No. 2 on 08.01.2020 (Annexure-6) but however, the same was not considered. Thus, having no other alternative, he is before this Court through the instant Writ Petition.