Order :

Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J.

1. This is a petition seeking review of judgement and order dated 18.03.2020 passed in LPA No. 218/2019.

Briefly stated, the material facts are as under:-

2. An advertisement notification dated 16.12.2013 was issued by the respondents inviting applications for 42 posts of Librarian. The maximum age prescribed for in-service candidates as on 01.01.2013 was 45 years.

The petitioner being in Government service in the Technical Education Department also applied for the said post. However, this advertisement was withdrawn by the J&K Public Service Commission (PSV) vide order dated 29.09.2016 and a fresh advertisement notice was issued on 13.12.2016. This time the number of posts advertised was 67 as against 42 notified earlier. The age of in-service candidates was prescribed as 40 years as on 01.01.2016. Since the petitioner was ineligible in terms of the notification dated 13.12.2016, he preferred a writ petition, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 04.06.2019. An intra-Court appeal was preferred by the petitioner, which too came to be dismissed vide judgement and order dated 18.03.2020.

3. The crux of the argument of the petitioner in LPA was that after the first advertisement dated 16.12.2013 was withdrawn, the Education Department had written to the Public Service Commission on 23.08.2016 that the cut-off date for age criteria applied in response to the earlier notification be treated as 01.01.2013. It was urged that even when the opinion of the Law Department was sought, the subsequent advertisement notification notice of 2016 was issued fixing the impugned eligibility condition, based whereupon the candidature of the petitioner was rejected, on the criteria of age.

In LPA, the case further set up was that the note appended to Schedule-II attached to the 2008 rules clearly provided the upper age limit of appointment for in-service candidate as 45 years as on 1st of January of the year of advertisement. It was stated that though Schedule-II was substituted vide notification dated 21.04.2014, the note appended of the Schedule-II was not tinkered with and hence the case set up was that the age as mentioned in the note remained unaltered even after substitution of Schedule-II.

4. In the judgment and order dated 18.03.2020, the Division Bench dealt with the issues and held that on account of the amendment incorporated vide Government Order No. 971-GAD of 2005 dated 05.08.2005, the maximum age limit for direct recruitment to Government service in all Subordinate and Gazetted Services, other than those filled through Combined Competitive Examination was amended, which inter alia provided for the upper age limit of 40 years for candidates, who are already in Government service.

5. The Division Bench also appears to have noticed the main argument of the learned counsel for the appellant which rested on the note appended to the Schedule-II of the 2008 rules, which reads as under:-

“Note:- The upper age limit for appointment of in-service candidates to Gazetted Service in the Higher Education department shall be 45 years as on 1st of January of the year of advertisement.”

6. The Division Bench however rejected the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that notwithstanding the substitution of Schedule-II, the note had survived and on the contrary held that after the substitution incorporated vide SRO 124 dated 21.04.2014 the note was no longer in existence and the benefit thereof could never flow to the petitioner. It was thus held that the maximum age limit for in-service candidates would be 40 years and the appellant admittedly being more than 40 years on 01.01.2016 was certainly overage for the post in question.

7. Through the medium of the present review petition, the petitioner has tried to highlight yet again the communication dated 23.08.2016, addressed to the Public Service Commission by the Higher Education Department with regard to adopting the criteria as was prevalent to