The central legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the petitioner to age relaxation similar to other candidates, as supported by the Constitution of India, Article 226, and relevant case laws.

ORDER :

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for setting aside the letter dated 26.6.2012 (Annexure P/1) issued by respondent No.1/State to respondent No.2, thereby disqualifying the petitioner for the post of Assistant Professor.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is having Ph.D. degree in the concerned subject awarded in the year 2000 from Dr. Hari Singh Gour University, Sagar (MP). He was working as a Casual Lecturer and Part-time Professor/Assistant Professor on contract basis since 1995 in different colleges. Since he fulfilled the requisite qualification as well as had the required experience as per the advertisement dated 22.6.2009 published by CGPSC, he applied for the post of Assistant Professor in the year 2009, but his candidature was rejected due to overage. Thereafter, the petitioner and three other candidates filed a writ petition i.e. WPS No.2711/2009 before this Court. This Court directed that the case of the petitioners only would be considered for relaxation of age in light of the observations made by the State Government. Accordingly, the State Government informed the Public Service Commission about the decision taken by it in the matter. Further, respondent No.1/Higher Education Department, issued a confidential letter in regard to candidate’s experiences pertaining to age relaxation, who had filed writ petitions before this Court. However, by the impugned letter dated 26.6.2012 (Annexure P/1), candidature of various candidates/writ petitioners, including the present petitioner whose name appear at Sl.No.2, was rejected. The petitioner’s candidature was rejected due to overage and the reason being shown that he could not complete the minimum required period for the age relaxation and lacking 1 year 11 months of required experience whereas he fulfilled the minimum requirement of experience pursuant to the advertisement for the post of Assistant Professor. In addition to that, the petitioner is awarded Ph.D. degree in the concerned subject.

3. Aggrieved by the rejection of their candidature, the petitioner and three other candidates filed another writ petition i.e. WPS No.142/2013 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 7.3.2013 with an observation that the petitioners, if so advised, may prefer a duly constituted contempt petition if the order passed by Division Bench of this Court has not been complied with. The petitioner and other candidates submitted several representations before the competent authorities but they failed to take any fruitful decision in their favour. The erstwhile State of MP had also advertised the post of Assistant Professor wherein five years age relaxation was given to Guest Lecturer. The petitioner is also having required experience of Guest Lecturer and other experiences. Hence this petition for the following reliefs:

“10.1 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the petitioner and after its perusal allow the petition.

10.2 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly further be pleased to set aside the impugned letter dated 26.6.12 issued by respondent No.1 State to the respondent No.2 (Annexure P-1) so far as it relates to the present petitioner only.

10.3 That the Hon’ble Court may kindly further be pleased to direct the respondent authority to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Professor considering experience earned from Poly Technique college as also giving age relaxation in accordance with law.

10.4 Any other relief or direction which the Hon’ble Court may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, be also issued in favour of the petitioner.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after direction of this Court, the respondent authorities had taken wrong action against the petitioner whereas the petitioner had fulfilled the minimum required qualification for the post of Assistant Professor.