DEVINDER PAL BANSAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can a person who is working on a post in the Punjab Civil Medical Service Class I on ad hoc basis be declared ineligible for direct recruitment to the same service on the ground of having become over -age without being given the benefit of the period of ad hoc services. This is the short question that arises for consideration in this case.

(2.) On October 2, 1993, the Punjab Public Service Commission advertised 200 posts in P.C.M.S. Class I. It was stipulated that the candidates should be between the age of 22 to 35 years on November 2, 1993 which was the 1st date for submission of applications. The petitioner who had served the State of Punjab on a post in P.C.M.S. Class I from January 29, 1987 to January 20, 1991 and from January 29, 1993 onwards applied for the post. Vide order dated February 8, 1994, a copy of which has been attached an Annexure P -6 with the writ petition the Commission rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that he was over age. Aggrieved by this order the petitioner has approached this court through the present writ petition. He claims that in view of the instructions appended with the application from issued by the Commission, the petitioner had a right to be given relaxation to the extent of 7 years. In spite of the fact that the petitioner had submitted a representation pointing out the factual position his claim was not considered. Consequently, he his approached this Court with a prayer that the action of the Commission in rejecting his application be quashed and it be directed to interview him for selection to P.C.M.S. Class I.

(3.) No written statement has been filed on behalf of the States of Punjab and the Director of Health and Family Welfare Department. However, a written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondent -Commission. The impugned order is supported on the basis of the provisions in the P.C.M.S. Class II Rules, 1982. It has been averred that there is no provision in the rules for relaxation of age and consequently, the petitioner was not entitled to be considered for appointment. With regard to the instructions appended to the application form, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P -5 with the writ petition, it has been averred that the said instructions "are related to only in those cases where the age relaxation is provided in the Service Rules." On this basis, it is submitted that the writ petition has no merit and should be rejected.