Public orders must be clear and cannot be supplemented by later explanations; failure to clarify age limits led to an unjust outcome for the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

S. N. Pathak, J.

Heard the parties.

PRAYER

2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of Advertisement dated 10.02.2022 (Annexure-5). Petitioner has further prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay salary from 15.12.2021 to 03.02.2022 i.e. for the period when he was allowed to work and continued as per the instruction of Dean, Faculty of Forestry, Birsa Agricultural University. Petitioner has also prayed for a direction upon the respondents to allow him to continue in service by giving extension and further to allow him to join the post.

FACTS OF THE CASE

3. According to the petitioner, he was appointed on 15.12.2020 after following due process of law in terms of advertisement/walk-in-interview on contract basis for the post of Assistant Professor-cum-Junior Scientist. Petitioner made his joining on 15.12.2020 and the same was duly accepted. Thereafter, pursuant to letter dated 26.08.2021, the service of the petitioner was extended for a period of six months. After completion of extended period, petitioner was allowed to work till 03.02.2022 by verbal order of the Dean in expectation that his extension of contract will be continued. Thereafter, a fresh Advertisement dated 10.02.2022 was published for walk-in-interview.

4. It is case of the petitioner that though he stood first in the interview but was not given appointment stating therein that on the date of interview, he completed 50 years as stated by Head of the Department verbally without issuance of any letter. Being aggrieved, petitioner filed representations but no heed was paid. Being aggrieved, petitioner has been constrained to knock door of this Court.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

5. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that from the letter dated 28.08.2017, it would be evident that due to exigency of work, the persons working on contractual basis, will be given age relaxation till regular appointments are made. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioner has not crossed the maximum age limit in view of the fact that the date of birth of the petitioner is 25.09.1971 and as per the advertisement dated 10.02.2022, the required maximum age is 50 years as on 01.08.2021. Thus, petitioner was only 49 year 10 months 6 days on the cut-off date fixed by the University and thus, he has not crossed the upper age limit.

6. Learned counsel further argues that one Mrs. Oindrilla Basu was appointed as an Assistant Professor cum Jr. Scientist in the department of Natural Resource Management, Faculty of Forestry but she did not join the post. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioner’s name figured at the top of the list of the selected candidate whereas said Mrs. Oindrilla Basu was in the 2nd position.

7. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel for the petitioner in reply to the argument made by the university contended that even if it is a mistake the University ought to have come out with the corrigendum for rectification of its mistake but the same has never been done and hence petitioner applied in terms of Advertisement dated 10.02.2022 where it has categorically been mentioned that the maximum upper age limit should be 50 years as on the date 01.08.2021. Admittedly, petitioner did not cross the upper age limit on the prescribed date.

8. Mr. Saurav Arun, learned counsel representing petitioner further argues that altogether four counter affidavits have been filed but the the plea of mistake committed by the University is being raised for the 1st time and the University is trying to supplement the reason for the 1st time as per the last counter affidavit which is against the spirit of judgement passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court i.e., in case of the Mohinder Singh Gill and others versus The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi reported in AIR1978(SC)851. Learned counsel for the petitioner heavily relies upon the judgement reported in 2007(4)JCR443 in which it has been held that due to latches/wrong done on the