HARPREET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner claims that he had been selected at the time when recruitment of ETT Teachers was processed in Zila Parishad Schools. The teachers appointed to Zila Parishad Schools have been transferred to the Punjab Government Education Department in schools run by the State Government. The Punjab Government has presently notified a large number of vacancies of ETT Teachers in various government schools in Punjab to be filled by direct recruitment. The advertisement has been issued on 09.11.2015, inviting applications from eligible candidates. The recruitment process initiated by the Zila Parishad for appointment of teachers in its schools has been rendered infructuous. In the changed circumstances the petitioner is at liberty to apply for the posts advertised and compete in open merit. However, his dilemma is that he is now over age by 18 days and therefore ineligible to apply for the post and thus prays for a direction to the respondents to relax the age bar for him to enable him to apply without going through the online process since it is programmed to reject his application being age barred. In the considered view of this court issuance of such a direction would not be permissible in mandamus jurisdiction based on the well settled rule that a writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court only when there exists a legal right in the writ petitioner and a corresponding legal obligation on the State. At neither end of the spectrum are there rights present in tandem. Age limit is an essential qualification as per rules which is not relaxable.

(2.) Moreover, the law declared on the subject regarding age relaxation in appointments etc. is clearly elucidated by the Supreme Court in several rulings including in Chairman, Public Service Commission, J&K v/s. Sudarshan Singh Jamwal, : (1998) 9 S.C.C. 327 wherein the Supreme Court held as follows and the text is short and quoted in extensor

(3.) The decision in the case of Sampat Prakash speaks of the application of Sec. 21 of the General Clauses Act. Sec. 21 of the General Clauses Act says that where by any Central Act or Regulation a power to issue notifications, orders, rules, or bye -laws is conferred, then that power includes a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any), to add to, amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders, rules or bye -laws so issued. The order, upon which the first respondent relied, was, according to the High Court itself, issued in the exercise of the State Governments inherent power, meaning, apparently, the power derived from Sec. 21 of the General Clauses Act. The order was not issued in exercise of the power to make the said Rules and power was not exercised in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions which operated for the making of the said Rules. Reliance upon the judgment in the case of Sampat Prakash was, therefore, misplaced as also reliance upon Sec. 21 of the General Clauses Act. The exemption order did not, therefore, entitle the first respondent to appear at the recruitment examination.