RAKESH KASHYAP Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.

(2.) THE relief, claimed by the petitioners, is to direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioners against the sanctioned posts Annexure P 4, on which the petitioners were working on part time contract basis, as teachers. The relief, as claimed, in our opinion, is completely in the teeth of the exposition of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and Others versus Uma Devi (3) and Others1.

(3.) WE fail to understand as to how the policy of the State can bind the respondents, who are governed by the Central Legislation. Respondents have relied on the provisions of Rule 5B(1) and 5B(2) of the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937. Sub Rule (2) postulates that no person, aged below 18 years and more than 25 years, shall be appointed to any post under a Board. Respondents are bound by the said stipulation. Proviso to the said sub rule, however, bestows Authority in the Central Government to relax the age limits. The communication, produced by learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, issued under the signature of Chief Executive Officer, Kasauli, addressed to him, is dated 16th September, 2013, in no uncertain terms mentions that if the petitioners were to apply for relaxation of age, that proposal will be considered in accordance with law before finalization of the selection process. The petitioners, if so advised, are free to apply for relaxation of age limit specified in Rule 5B(2) of the Rules of 1937 and if such representation is made, we have no manner of doubt that the appropriate Authority will consider the same expeditiously and if the relaxation is granted, petitioners can participate in the ensuing selection process. Besides this, nothing more can be done in the present petition. The same is disposed of accordingly.