The main legal point established in the judgment is that employees working on temporary, contractual, or adhoc positions are at par with regular employees in the matter of grant of age relaxation, as per the relevant provisions and case laws.

JUDGMENT

1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the advertisement No.13/2021, dtd. 28/12/2021, issued by respondent No.3/ Commissioner/Director, Homeopathy (Ayush), Bhopal whereby, applications have been invited for the post of Homeopathic Doctor in the State of Madhya Pradesh as 43 such posts under various categories were to be filled through the aforesaid advertisement.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is in respect of the age relaxation as, according to the condition No.7(II)(F) of the advertisement, it is provided that the minimum age would be 21 years whereas, the maximum should not be more than 40 years. In the advertisement itself, relaxation in the upper limit has also been provided in condition No.(I)(1), in the condition of age relaxation, which provides that there would be relaxation of five years as per the circular dtd. 4/7/2019, in respect of Other Backward Class, Government/Corporation/Board/Self Autonomous Bodies' employees/Home Guard/Women (Reserved/Unreserved) which would be 45 years.

3. Counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Ayush Department (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2013'). Rule 8(1)(c) of which provides that the concession of 45 years shall also be admissible to work charged employees, contingency paid employees and persons employed in the project implementing committees. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed on 4/5/2020, under the delegated power of the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Public Health Act, 1949 by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, District- Dhar, which was for a period of three months, which was extended from time to time up to March, 2022.

4. Counsel has submitted that the aforesaid Rules of 2013 have not been taken into account while issuing the aforesaid advertisement. In support of his contention, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions rendered by this Court in the case of Swaran Vibha Pandey Vs State of M.P. and others reported as 2021(4) MPLJ 269, Raghvendra Agrawal Vs State of M.P. and others reported as 2009(2) MPLJ 447 and in the case of Dr. Ranbahadur Singh Chauhan Vs State of M.P. and others passed on 8/8/2017 in W.P. No.3176/2017.

5. The petition is opposed by all the parties concerned and replies have also been filed. Shri V.P. Khare, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/Public Service Commission has submitted that no case for interference is made out as the petitioner is not entitled to any relief even according to Rule 8(1)(C) of Rules, 2013 which does not provide any extension of relaxation in upper age limit to the employees of National Health Mission.

6. Counsel appearing for the State, Shri Manish Nair has opposed the petition on the ground that the petitioner's employment itself was purely for a period of 3 months and also was purely temporary in nature. Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to condition No.2 of the appointment order of the petitioner which provides that the employment of the petitioner would be for 3 moths and thereafter he cannot claim any right on account of the same for his regular or contractual employment. Thus, it is submitted that the condition of the contract of the petitioner itself is more than sufficient to hold that he cannot claim the benefit of the same as his employment which was purely of temporary in nature as the petitioner was appointed during and for Covid period only.

7. On the other hand, the counsel appearing for respondent No.4/National Health Mission has submitted that no case for interference is made out as the petitioner was appointed under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Public Health Act, 1949, Sec. 10 of which provides for appointment of temporary health officer in emergency and the petitioner was appointed only taking into account of the emergency at the time of spread of Covid-19 and thus, w