MOHINDER KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY medium of this writ petition, the petitioner has questioned the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the petition filed (O.A. No. 1387 -HP -2013) was dismissed.

(2.) THE facts as set out in the petition are that the petitioner was appointed by respondent No. 3 on 20.08.2002 as Lower Division Clerk on contract basis. The respondent -department on 11.12.2012 invited applications for the purpose of appointment of three posts of Lower Division Clerk for which the petitioner also applied. However, his case was rejected on the ground of his being overage. When the contract of the petitioner was not being renewed, he filed writ petition bearing CWP No. 6124 of 2012 which ultimately was withdrawn by him on 18.09.2013 with liberty to approach a competent authority. The petitioner thereafter approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, but the Tribunal too dismissed the petition.

(3.) IN response to petition, respondents No. 3 and 4 have filed their reply wherein it has been averred that the petitioner cannot claim regularization as per the regularization policy framed by the State of Himachal Pradesh since the employees of the Institution are governed by the Recruitment and Promotion Rules of the Central Government. It is further averred that since the petitioner was overage, his case could not be considered for regularization. As per the advertisement, the maximum age limit was 28 years as on 01.07.2011 and the petitioner admittedly was more than 28 years on the cut -off date.