PAMALA KUMARI Vs. THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Mrigank Mauli for the Respondent High Court.

(2.) The appellant has come up contending that she fulfilled the eligibility criteria and she was even selected and offered appointment, but at the time of her joining she was informed that she was over age as on the date of the advertisement.

(3.) Learned counsel contends that the advertisement itself provided for relaxation to the members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Categories and if that was so, such relaxation was also available to the appellant who, even though belonging to the General Category, was entitled for such relaxation keeping in view the resolution that was passed pursuant to the decision of the Cabinet dated 26.06.2006 that remained in operation till 31.12.2010 and was extended till 31.12.2015, whereafter it was again promulgated on 07.01.2016. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the same prescribes the maximum age limit for unreserved category of males up to 37 years and un-reserved category of females to 40 years. Thus, the maximum age for candidates of the female category in the un-reserved class was 40 years and since the applicant was only 38 years of age on the date of application she was entitled to be considered for appointment keeping in view the aforesaid resolution. It is urged that the said resolution by implication is applicable, inasmuch as, it is under the same resolution that the maximum age limits in respect of reserved categories has been relaxed.