Hon’ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner was engaged on contract basis on payment of honorarium as Technical Assistant pursuant to the advertisement dated 10.2.2010 inviting applications for appointment on 103 post of Technical Assistant under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act.

3. Admittedly, the petitioner, when applied for the aforesaid engagement, had already retired as S.D.O. (phones). He was appointed on yearly contract which was further renewed from year to year and the last contract was dated 16.9.2013 under which the petitioner would have continued upto November, 2014.

4. By the impugned order dated 3.1.2014 the contract of the petitioner has been terminated on the ground that at present he is aged about 65 years and 5 months and as such he has exceeded the maximum age of 62 years and he cannot be continued on contract basis. This is disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. A counter-affidavit was called and in the counter-affidavit a categorical stand has been taken that as per the Government Order dated 19.1.2010 the maximum age limit for a Technical Assistant is 62 years. Relevant paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit is quoted as under :

“10. That the contents of paragraph No. 15 and 16 of the writ petition as stated are wrong and misconceived hence denied. In reply thereto it is submitted that According to the Government order dated 19/1/2010 (contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition) it is provided that the minimum and maximum age of the Technical Assistant will be 18 years and 62 years respectively. It is clarified herein that the minimum age for engagement of the Technical Assistant is 18 years and maximum age upto which Technical Assistant can work is 62 years. It is further clarified here that such engagement of Technical Assistant will be only for one year and if work of the Technical Assistant is not satisfactory, their engagement can be ended/disengaged on the recommendation of the committee headed by the District Magistrate concerned. In the case of the petitioner, though his renewal was for the period 29/11/2013 to 28/11/2014, however the age of the petitioner was above 62 years, hence following the provisions of the Government order dated 19/1/2010 the impugned dated 3.1.2014 was passed, in view of the letter dated 30/12/2013 and recommendation of the District Magistrate dated 26/12/2013.”

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner by filing rejoinder-affidavit disputed the correctness of the stand taken by the State Authorities. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that age of 62 years, as provided in the Government Order dated 19.1.2010, is for the purpose of engagement only and it does not create any bar on continuation of any such Technical Assistant beyond 62 years of age and as such, his contractual appointment cannot be terminated and under any circumstance, this cannot be terminated before the expiry of the period as given in the last contract dated 16.9.2013. He further submitted that in case the contract is to be terminated it can be only on two conditions; (1) engagement has come to an end and (2) when the working is not found satisfactory by the Committee headed by the District Magistrate. He submits that none of the conditions has been satisfied in the present case.

7. I am unable to accept the contention made by the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the Government Order dated 19.1.2010 clearly provides for minimum and maximum age of Technical Assistant, which is 18 years and 62 years respectively. Relevant portion of the Government Order dated 19.1.2010 is quoted as under :

“vk;q++& rduhdh lgk;dksa dh U;wure vf/kdre vk;q dze'k% 18 o 62 o"kZ gksxhA rduhdh lgk;dkssa ds in ij lsokfuo`Rr deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok,a ysus ds fy, ;g vo'; /;ku essa j[kk tk;sxk fd mldk dk;Z ,oa vkpj.k larks"ktud jgk gks vkSj mldh lsok,a lekIr u dh