BALJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of direction to the respondents to extend benefit of notification dated 24.5.2010 (Annexure P-3) amending Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Services) Rules, 1994. According to the amendment made by insertion of Rule 5A, the upper age limit of appointment in service for any category of person seeking employment has been raised from 35 to 37. The aforesaid amendment reads as under :-

(2.) The petitioner has claimed that the advertisement for appointment to the post of PCS (Executive Branch) has been issued on 28.11.2009 and the last date of receipt of the applications is 28.12.2009 alleging that the benefits of notification dated 24.5.2010 by insertion of Rule 5(A) has been extended to those who are to take PCS (Judicial Branch) examination and whereas the same benefit has been denied to the petitioner. The petitioner has attached advertisement for PCS (Judicial Branch) dated 10.5.2010 (Annexure P-2). It is clearly mentioned in the advertisement that the last date of receipt of the application for PCS (Judicial Branch) Examination, 2010 is 17.6.2010.

(3.) In response to the notice of motion, the respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their reply and have pleaded that there is no discrimination because for PCS (Judicial Branch) Examination, 2010, the last date for receipt of the application is 17.6.2010 which is the cut off date for determining the eligibility in all respect and since the amendment by insertion of Rule 5A has been given effect from 24.5.2010, the applicant for appointment to PCS (Judicial Branch) would be entitled to the benefit of the aforesaid amendment, whereas the last date for determining the eligibility in the case of petitioner who is seeking appointment to PCS (Executive Branch) is 28.12.2009. Therefore, there is no discrimination in treating two different categories differently. It has also been pleaded that the petitioner along with others had earlier approached this Court by filing CWP No. 20311 of 2009 which was dismissed on 24.2.2010.