SUMER CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for quashing the notifications/instructions issued by the State of Haryana bearing letter no. 22/88/96-3 GS-III dated 25.6.1997 and also directing the respondents to appoint him as Assistant Director/Principal ITI Technical Grade' A' as he has been duly selected by the Haryana Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the HPSC').

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the respondent-Department had sent a requisition of three temporary posts of Assistant Director/Principal, ITI (Technical) Group 'A'. All these three posts were meant for General Category. These three posts were advertised vide Advertisement no. 1 Category-2 (Annexure P-1) in April/May 2003. According to this advertisement, the age of candidates was required to be minimum 30 years and not more than 40 years on 31.12.2002. The petitioner applied for the said post submitting his Scheduled Caste Certificate and gained the benefit of fee concession meant for reserved category. The date of birth of the petitioner is 25.3.1961 and as on the last date of submission of application form, he was more than 42 years of age. The HPSC considering him ineligible, being more than 40 years of age did not call him for interview. The petitioner personally appeared before the HPSC and indicated that he was competing for General Category post but he was entitled to age relaxation being a Scheduled Caste Category candidate (relaxation upto 5 years of age). He was permitted to participate in the interview and was selected and recommended for appointment alongwith two other candidates, namely, Shri Sumeet Sherwat and Shri Sumer Chand against the three said posts meant for General Category. The Department, however, did not appoint him because he was above 40 years of age and thus, not eligible for appointment to the said post. The matter was referred to the Government for giving appointment to the petitioner by relaxation in age. The Government in light of the instructions dated 25.6.1997 advised the Department that the petitioner was not entitled for appointment being over age and not entitled to any relaxation. The instructions dated 25.6.1997 are reproduced as under:-

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.