Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.

1. The Appellant has appeared in person to assail the order dated 19.04.2017 passed by a learned Single Judge wherein his writ application has been dismissed refusing to grant him benefit of age relaxation for appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Entry Level) Examination 2014.

2. The Appellant was appointed as a Shiksha Karmi Grade-III (now re-designated as Assistant Teacher Panchayat). The appointment was made on the basis of the order dated 10.07.2008 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Bhatapara. The appointment is supposed to be governed by what is known as Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmi (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 2007 (for short the 2007 Rules) notified under the power exercised under Section 70(1) of the Chhattisgarh Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1993 (for short the Act of 1993).

3. While working as a Panchayat Teacher, the Appellant responded to the advertisement dated 26.02.2014 issued by the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission for the post of Civil Judge (Entry Level). He claimed benefit of age relaxation in terms of Clause (iv)(c) of the terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 26.02.2014, which reads as under:

"(Four) Age Limit:-

The candidate must have completed the age of 21 years but he/she must not complete 35 years of age as on the 1st day of January 2015.

xxx xxx xxx

(c) The upper age limit for Government Servant whether permanent or temporary, shall be relaxable upto further 3 years in addition to the relaxations available as above."

4. It is his case that he was allowed to appear in the written examination and he cleared preliminary and mains examinations, but at the time of interview he was informed that since he was over age, he cannot be considered for appointment. The age relaxation which the Appellant was looking at is only available to a Government Servant for a further period of three years and since he was not a State Government employee by virtue of being a Panchayat Teacher, the relaxation provided for in Clause (iv) sub-clause (c) of the advertisement cannot be extended to him.

5. For that alone reason, the Appellant filed the writ application. Before the learned Single Judge, it was the submission of the Appellant that since the Government Servant has not been defined in the advertisement or in the Chhattisgarh Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2006, therefore, definition contained in Rule 15 of the Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission Rules as well as definition contained in Rule 2(a)(iii) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (for short the Rules, 1966) would be applicable. He further contended that after his appointment as a Panchayat Teacher he was posted and placed at the disposal of the State Government in Government Primary School, Mopki, Tehsil Bhatapara, District-Balodabazar and therefore, he is a Government Servant and entitled to age relaxation in terms of the advertisement.

6. The stand of the State, however, before the learned Single Judge was that the Appellant was appointed by the Chief Executive Officer of the Janpad Panchayat in terms of the 2007 Rules. Not only the appointment, but the control and disciplinary authority for such Panchayat Teachers is in the hands of Chief Executive Officer of the Panchayat. Under Section 70 of the Act of 1993, every Panchayat is entitled to make appointment of its officers and servants. The 2007 Rules was also notified in exercise of power under Section 70(1) of the Act of 1993 and the said Rule has not been framed in exercise of powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. It was the stand of the State that by no stretch of imagination, a Panchayat Teacher appointed by a Panchayat can be treated as a Government Servant and therefore, the age relaxation of additional three years provided in the advertisement in terms of clause (iv) (c) is misplaced.

7. The stand of