SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(P&H) 3321

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Ajai Lamba, J.
Sushil Kumar
Versus
Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala
Civil Writ Petition No. 20687 of 2010,
Decided On : DECEMBER 13, 2010

The court established that the respondents cannot deny the petitioner the age relaxation as permissible under the Brochure, and that even a disabled person in government service should be entitled to the same benefit as a person from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of all States and Backward Classes of Punjab.

Headnote:

Age Relaxation - Government Employees - Punjab Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2009 - Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 - [21, 22] - The court considered the relevant provisions in the Brochure provided with the application form, which included age relaxation for government employees and disabled persons of Punjab. The court held that the respondents cannot deny the petitioner the age relaxation as permissible under the Brochure, and that even a disabled person in government service should be entitled to the same benefit as a person from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of all States and Backward Classes of Punjab.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a physically disabled government employee from Punjab, sought age relaxation to appear in the preliminary examination of Punjab State Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2009. The respondents denied the age relaxation benefit to the petitioner based on the interpretation of the Brochure provided with the application form.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the respondents cannot deny the petitioner the age relaxation as permissible under the Brochure, and that even a disabled person in government service should be entitled to the same benefit as a person from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of all States and Backward Classes of Punjab.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, a physically disabled government employee, was entitled to age relaxation to appear in the examination, as provided in the Brochure.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondents cannot deny the petitioner the age relaxation as permissible under the Brochure, and that even a disabled person in government service should be entitled to the same benefit as a person from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of all States and Backward Classes of Punjab.

Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to process the application form of the petitioner and issue a Roll Number to the petitioner.

Judgment

Ajai Lamba, J.

1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 29.10.2010 (An- nexure P-5). Further prayer made in the petition is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to appear as eligible candidate in the preliminary examination of Punjab State Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2009, scheduled to be held on 19.12.2010.

2. It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is a physically disabled person from Punjab, as per the certificate issued by Civil Surgeon, Ludhiana. The disability of the petitioner is not less than 40% as per definition in the "Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995".

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that the petitioner is in government service in Revenue Department of Punjab and is serving the respondents since 1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the Brochure issued for filling the form for Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch), the age relaxation has been provided. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the relevant column at page 21 of the Brochure.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the petitioner is entitled to relaxation in age, being a government servant and for further relaxation being physically handicapped. The age of the petitioner is a little over 46 years.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State has argued that the upper age limit for all government employees is relaxable up to 45 years, as on 1.1.2009. The petitioner, however, cannot get the benefit of age relaxation in upper limit up to 10 years permissible for disabled persons of Punjab.

6. On a query of the Court, learned counsel for the respondent- State, however, admits that in terms of Government instructions, a person belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of all States and Backward Classes of Punjab would be entitled to double relaxation i.e. age relaxation up to a maximum of 5 years, and if he is also a government employee, his age would be relaxable up to 45 years as on 1.1.2009. The categoric case of the learned counsel for the respondent-State is that if a person is a government employee and belongs to the three categories mentioned above, he would be eligible to take the examination even if he were 50 years of age, on the first day of January of the year in which the last day falls for submission of applications to the Punjab Public Service Commission.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, however, contends that the Government instructions do not allow double relaxation in the case of a disabled person even though he is a government employee also. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, however, admits that no such provision has been given in the Brochure provided for filling the application form, either in regard to double relaxation permissible to persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes of all States and Backward Classes of Punjab, or not allowing double relaxation for disabled persons.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, so as to consider the arguments in proper context, the relevant provisions in the Brochure provided with the application form are required to be considered. Relevant portion from pages 21 and 22 of the Brochure reads as under:-

a) A candidate should have attained the minimum age of twenty one years and should not have attained the age of thirty five years on the first day of January of the year, in which the last day falls for submission of application to the Commission;

xx xx xx xx xx XX XX XX XX XX

b) The upper age limit for all Govt, employees will- be relaxable upto 45 years as on 01.01.2009.

c) The upper age limit prescribed above will be relaxable up to a maximum of five years f












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top