IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.
Deepak Bhandari & others – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others – Respondents
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 134 of 2023, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 135 of 2023, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 140 of 2023, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 129 of 2023, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 138 of 2023, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 143 of 2023, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 162 of 2023, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 189 of 2023, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 197 of 2023, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1868 of 2023, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 165 of 2023, Writ Petition (S/S) No. 192 of 2023
Decided on : 30-10-2023
Age Relaxation - Recruitment Controversy - Uttarakhand Subordinate Nurses (Non-gazetted) Service Rules, 2020 - Clause 7 of the advertisement dated 03.01.2023 - Rule 10 of the Uttarakhand Subordinate Nurses (Non-gazetted) Service Rules, 2019 - Government Order dated 14.10.2022 - Dr. Thingujam Achouba Singh and others Vs. Dr. H. Nabachandra Singh and others (2020) 20 SCC 312 - Hirandra Kumar Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Another (2020) 17 SCC 401 - Relaxation of age limit for candidates who were within the maximum age limit at the time of application
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners applied for the post of Nursing Officer (Female/Male) in a selection process held by Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education (UBTER) based on an advertisement dated 12.12.2020. However, the selection process was delayed, and a fresh advertisement was issued on 03.01.2023, rendering the petitioners overage. The petitioners sought age relaxation to be considered for the selection process.
Finding of the Court:
The delay caused by the respondents in completing the selection process was deemed fatal to the petitioners' interests, and they were illegally deprived of their right to be considered for appointment. The court allowed the writ petitions and issued a writ of mandamus to treat the petitioners within the maximum age limit and hold them eligible to apply for the posts.
Issues: Delay in selection process, overage disqualification, non-impleadment of UBTER as a party, challenge to Rule 10 of the Rules of 2015, and entitlement to age relaxation.
Ratio Decidendi: The delay caused by the respondents in completing the selection process was fatal to the petitioners' interests, and they were entitled to age relaxation to be considered for the selection process.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions and issued a writ of mandamus to treat the petitioners within the maximum age limit and hold them eligible to apply for the posts. The respondent no.4 was directed to declare the result of the petitioners accordingly, and if they fell within the zone of consideration and were found otherwise qualified in all other aspects, they were to be recommended and offered the appointment(s).
JUDGMENT :
Since all these writ petitions involve a similar question of fact and law to be decided, therefore these are being taken up and decided together by way of this common judgment for the sake of brevity and convenience.
2. WPSS No.134 of 2023 shall be the leading case for the purpose of deciding the controversy involved in this batch of writ petitions.
3. The facts of these matters are that the respondent no.4 published an advertisement on 03.01.2023 inviting applications from the candidates for supplying the vacancies on the post of Nursing Officer (Female/Male) in the Department of Medical Health and Family Welfare, Uttarakhand. As per the qualification given in the said advertisement, petitioners, who were duly qualified, to submit their application forms being eligible. There is no dispute about their eligibility for the purpose of filling up the application forms for the said post. The main controversy falls in a very narrow compass with regards to the upper age limit of the candidates. According to Clause 7 of the advertisement dated 03.01.2023, age of a candidate shall be reckoned from 01.07.2022 and on that date, candidate must have attained minimum age of 21 years and maximum of 42 years. The said Clause of the advertisement is being quoted herein below:
^^7- vk;q%& vk;q x.kuk dh fu'pk;d frfFk 01 tqykbZ 2022 gSA vH;FkhZ dh vk;q 01 tqykbZ] 2022 dks U;wure 21 o"kZ gks rFkk vf/kdre 42 o"kZ ls vf/kd vk;q izkIr u dh gksA
ijUrq mÙkjk[k.M jkT; dh vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa] vuqlwfpr tutkfr;ksa o vU; ,slh Jsf.k;ksa] tks fd jkT; ljdkj }kjk le;≤ ij vf/klwfpr dh tk;s] dks mPprj vk;q lhek mrus o"kZ vf/kd gksxh] ftruh fu;eksa esa fofufnZ"V dh x;h gksA^^
4. It is the submission of the petitioners that in the year 2020, an advertisement was also issued by the Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education on 12.12.2020 (Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) for the post of Staff Nurse (Female/Male) for the respondent-department. The petitioners are those persons who have submitted their candidature by applying pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement dated 12.12.2020. It is submitted by the petitioners that according to the Clause 02 of the said advertisement, age was to be reckoned from 01.01.2020 and the candidate applying pursuant to the said advertisement must have attained minimum age of 21 years and not more than 42 years of age on that date. The petitioners were age-wise eligible on that date and accordingly they submitted their applications. But, unfortunately, no recruitment was held pursuant to the said advertisement and a fresh advertisement was issued on 02.02.2021 by Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education for the same vacancies. By issuing this subsequent advertisement, earlier advertisement dated 12.12.2020 was cancelled, but it has been specified that the candidates, who have submitted their on-line application and fee pursuant to the earlier advertisement dated 12.12.2020, need not to re-apply for the said post. It is pertinent to state at this stage that the post of Staff Nurse (Female/Male) was subsequently given new nomenclature and is now known as Nursing Officer (Female/Male). In the aforesaid advertisement dated 02.02.2021, a corrigendum was issued on 09.02.2021 and from this corrigendum, 1383 more posts were added (earlier it was 1238), which resulted into the total vacancies under the said corrigendum leading to 2621. However, in the corrigendum it has been stated that all other terms and conditions shall remain same as per advertisement dated 02.02.2021 except addition of 1383 posts, which brought total number of post to be filled up to 2621.
5. Ultimately, pursuant to the advertisement dated 02.02.2021, the recruitment process was initiated and provisional admit cards were issued to the petitioners, wherein the date of written examination fixed was 18.04.2021, but due to certain reasons, best known to the respondents, the date of written examination was postponed to 15.06.2021. Finally, this time again, the recruitment
Hirandra Kumar Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and Another reported in (2020) 17 SCC 401
The court established that recruitment age limit conditions must be consistent with prior advertisements and that candidates should not be penalized for changes in conditions that occur after their i....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that petitioners cannot claim age relaxation based on alleged promises or inaction of the Government, and the court emphasized that the action of t....
The court held that the condition of the upper age limit of 42 years for applying for the selection on the post of Uttarakhand Health Worker (Female) Examination-2022 was illegal and directed the res....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of judicial discipline and the binding nature of decisions by coordinate benches, upholding the legality of the advertisements and ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.