1. The short question involved in the present writ petition is whether the petitioner is entitled for age relaxation in terms of clause (iv) (c) of the advertisement dated 26.2.2014 (Annexure P/15) for the post of Civil Judge (Entry Level) Examination 2014.

2. The essential facts imperative to answer the above-stated question are as under:-

2.1 The petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-III (now re-designated as Assistant Teacher Panchayat) by order of the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara dated 10.7.2008 (Annexure P/9) under the C.G. Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter called as “Rules of 2007”) as amended from time to time for a period of two years. It was further submitted that in the order of appointment it has been mentioned that his appointment is being made for the schools owned by School Education and the schools maintained by Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan.

2.2 The petitioner pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission dated 26.2.2014 applied for the post of Civil Judge (Entry Level) Examinations 2014, in which he claimed age relaxation in terms of clause (iv)(c) of the advertisement dated 26.2.2014. He was allowed to appear in the written examination and he cleared pre & mains examinations, but ultimately at the time of interview, it was informed to him that he is over age and age relaxation available to the government servant for a period of further three years is not available to him as he is not a government servant being Shiksha Karmi Grade-III (Assistant Teacher Panchayat).

2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the action of respondent No.1 herein/Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission declining him that he is not eligible to avail the age relaxation as per clause (iv) (c) of the advertisement filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Mr. Harnarayan Yadav, petitioner-in-person would submit that government servant has neither defined in the advertisement nor in the Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter called as “Rules of 2006”), therefore, definition contained in Rule 15 of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Rules (hereinafter called as “PSC Rules”) as well as definition contained in Rule 2 (a) (iii) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (hereinafter called as “Rules of 1966”) would be applicable. He would further submit that after his appointment he has been placed at the disposal of the State Government in Government Primary School, Mopki, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Balodabazar and therefore, he is government servant and entitled for age relaxation in terms of clause (iv) (c) of the advertisement. He would place reliance upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the matters of Renu & Ors. Vs. District & Sessions Judge, Tis Hazari & Anr. AIR 2014 SC 2175 (para. 16 and 18) and State of Gujarat & Another Vs. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni and others (1983) 2 SCC 33 (para. 26).

4. Mr. Y.S. Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for respondent No.2, would submit that the petitioner has been appointed by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara under the Rules of 2007 and his appointing, controlling and disciplinary authority is the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara. He would further submit that under Section 70 of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (hereinafter called as “Act of 1993”) every Panchayat is entitled to make an appointment of officers/servants with previous approval of the Prescribed Authority. He would also submit that the Rules of 2007 was promulgated under Section 70(1) of the Act of 1993 and that Rules were not framed in exercise of powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. He contended that Shiksha Karmis/Assistant Teacher Panchayat are not appointed under th