CHATTER SINGH GILL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The posts of Assistant Engineers were advertised in the year 1991 vide annexure P-1. As per terms and conditions of the advertisement, the age of the candidates should not be below 20 years and more than 35 years as on August 1, 1991. Subsequently, on April 13, 1993, twenty posts of Assistant Engineers were advertised vide annexure P-2 and the cut of date for the purpose of age was August 1, 1992. The allegation of the petitioners is that since all these thirty posts existed prior to the first advertisement, the cut of date should have been August 1, 1991 as given in annexure P-1 and if that is so, the petitioners were eligible to apply for the same. This contention cannot be accepted. It was the prerogative of the State to fill ten posts out of thirty posts if that number existed and if they have advertised only ten posts, those posts would be filled as per the criterion given in the advertisement, annexure P-1.

(2.) It is entirely different that on account of personal bond executed by the petitioners to serve the department for a period of five years that they could not apply for those ten posts advertised in August, 1991. Merely because twenty more posts were advertised subsequently in the year 1992 and the petitioners by then could apply for the posts, it cannot be said that their candidature should be considered for the ten posts.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner should be allowed to take benefit of Rule 8(1)(c) of the Punjab Service of Engineers, Class III, P.W.D. (Building and Roads Branch) Rules, 1965, and extension of 5 years benefit in the matter of age for direct recruitment in respect of candidates already in service should be allowed. The aforesaid Rule reads as under :-