S.C. Sharma, J.
Raghvendra Agrawal v. State of M.P. and others
Writ Petition No.4310 of 2007(S) (Gwalior); Decided on 5.2.2009.
After introduction of the course in the year 1995, the advertisement was issued for the first time in the year 2005 and, he is continuing to teach the subject right from the academic session 2000-01 as temporary lecturer/guest faculty in the institution and, therefore, in all fairness relaxation in age should have been granted for considering his candidature for the post of lecturer, textile design.
In the present case, it is not in dispute that the petitioner is holding a bachelor degree in Engineering from the Rajasthan University and also holding a post graduate degree of Master of Technology. The petitioner has also obtained a first division in the Bachelor Engineering degree and fulfils the requisite educational qualification for the post in question as advertised by the MPPSC.
The only dispute before this Court is whether the petitioner is entitled for the age relaxation as per the provisions of rule 8 of the Rules of 2004 or not?
[Paras 8, 15 & 16
Held : There is no distinction between the employees who are working on temporary posts or short term, contractual or ad hoc employees and they are at par with the regular employees in the matter of grant of age relaxation. In the present case, the petitioner is working as temporary/part-time lecturer/guest faculty right from the academic session 2000-01 till date and, therefore, entitled for age relaxation at par with the Government employees as stated earlier in the preceding paragraphs. (2008) 11 SCC 10 and (1997)6 SCC 614 followed. Writ Petition No.882 of 2006 relied on. 2008(4) MPJR SN 11 distinguished. [Para 25
rduhdh f’k{kk ikWfyVsfDud fo|ky; ¼‘kS{kkf.kd laoxZ½ lsok ¼HkrhZ½ fu;e] 2004¼e-iz-½ && fu-8 ¼10½ && ;kph vLFkk;h@vfrfFk ds :Ik eas f‘k{kd ds in ij dk;Zjr && f‘k{kd ds in ij fu;qfDr dh n‘kk esa vk;q f‘kfFkyhdj.k dk gdnkj && vk;q f‘kfFkyhdj.k ds iznku ds fo"k; es deZpkfj;ksa ds e/; dksbZ Hksn ugha gSA
o"kZ 1995 esa ikB~;dze vkjaHk fd, tkus ds i‘pkr~] o"kZ 2005 esa izFke ckj foKkiu tkjh fd;k x;k] rFkk og laLFkk esa ‘kS{kf.kd l= 2000&01 ls gh vLFkk;h izk/;kid@vfrfFk ds :i es fo"k; i<+k jgk gS] blfy,] iw.kZ fu"i{krk ls] izk/;kid] VsdLVkby fMtk;u ds in ds fy, vldh vH;fFkZrk ij fopkj djus ds fy, vk;q es f‘kfFkyhdj.k iznku fd;k tkuk pkfg, FkkA
izLrqr ekeys esa ;g fooknxr ugha gS fd ;kph fd ikl jktLFkku fo‘ofo|ky; ls bathfu;fjax dh Lukrd mikf/k gS rFkk ekLVj vkWQ VsDuksykWth dh LukrdksRrj mikf/k Hkh gSA ;kph us bathfu;fjax dh Lukrd mikf/k esa izFke Js.kh izkIr dh gS rFkk og iz‘uxr in ds fy, vko‘;d "kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk iwjh djrk gS] tSlh fd ,e ih ih ,l lh }kjk foKkiu esa nh xbZ gSA
bl U;k;ky; ds le{k fookn dsoy ;g gS fd ;kph ds 2004 fu;eksa ds fu;e 8 ds mica/kksa ds vuqlkj vk;q f‘kfFkyhdj.k ds fy, gdnkj gS ;k ugha \ ¼iSjk 8] 15 ,oa 16
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % vk;q f"kfFkZyhdj.k iznku djus ds fo"k; esa] vLFkk;h inksa ij ;k y?kq vof/k ij dk;Z dj jgs deZpkfj;ksa] lafonkRed ;k rnFkZ deZpkfj;ksa ds e/; dksbZ Hksn ugha gS rFkk vk;q f‘kfFkyhdj.k fd, tkus ds fo"k; esa os fu;fer deZpkfj;ksa ds cjkcj gSaA izLrqr ekeys esa] ;kph "kS{kf.kd l= 2000&01ls gh vkt rd vLFkk;h@va‘kdkfyd izk/;kid@vfrfFk d :i esa dk;Z dj jgk gS blfy,] tSlk iwoZorhZ iSjkvksa es igys dgk x;k] ljdkjh deZpkfj;ksa ds lkFk cjkcjh ls vk;q f‘kfFkyhdj.k dk gdnkj gSA ¼2008½11 ,l lh lh 10 rFkk ¼1997½6 ,l lh lh 614 vuqlfjrA fjV ;kfpdk dz- 882 lu~ 2006 voyafcrA 2008¼4½ ,e ih ts vkj ,l ,u 11 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 25
1. The petitioner before this Court being aggrieved by an order dated 11th July, 2007 passed by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the MPPSC) by which his candidature for the post of Lecturer, Textile Design has been rejected has filed this present petition for issuance of appropriate writ or order or direction directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the process of selection by granting the benefit of the age relaxation in the upper age limit as he has served the State of Madhya Pradesh initially as the part-time Lecturer, Textile Design and thereafter as the Guest Faculty in the same subject at Government Women Polytechnic College, Gwalior.
2. The contention of the petitioner is that he is holding the recognized Bachelor Engineering degree as well as the Master of Technology degree and, in the year 2000, an advertisement was issued by the respondent No.3, the Principal, Government Women Polytechnic College, Gwalior inviting the applications for the academic session 2000-01 for the post of part-time Lecturer, Textile Design against a vacant post of Lecturer, Textile Design. The petitioner pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement submitted his application and as he was possessing the qualifications prescribed by the All India Council for Technical Education, he was selected for the post of Lecturer, Textile Design (part-time) by an order dated 20th August, 2001. The petitioner thereafter has continued as the Lecturer (part-time) and later on the designation of the post was changed and he is continuing as the Guest Faculty (Lecturer) in the subject of Textile Design. The petitioner is still continuing as the Guest Faculty in the subject of Textile Design at the Government Women Polytechnic College, Gwalior. Relevant certificates to this effect certifying the continuance of the petitioner as the part-time lecturer/guest faculty (lecturer) in the subject of Textile Design are enclosed as Annexure P-4 and Annexure P-5. It has been further stated by the petitioner that the State Government in order to fill up the vacant post of lecturer has requested the MPPSC and the MPPSC has thereafter issued an advertisement dated 7th November, 2005 (Annexure P-2) inviting the applications for various posts and one unreserved vacancy for the post of Lecturer, Textile Design was published and the qualification prescribed for the aforesaid post was a recognized degree in Bachelor of Engineering in the concerned subject with first division. The petitioner contends that he possesses the requisite qualification for the aforesaid post as not only he is holding the bachelor degree in Engineering but also a master of technology degree in the subject concerned. It has been further stated that an application for appointment was submitted in the prescribed format, however, to his utter surprise by an order dated 11th July, 2007, his candidature has been rejected by the MPPSC on the ground that he is over age. The petitioner at the time when the advertisement was issued by the MPPSC was aged about 37 years 24 days and, therefore, the MPPSC was of the opinion that the petitioner is over age as per the advertisement and the recruitment rules. The contention of the petitioner is that he is working right from the academic session 2000-01 as part-time Lecturer and still continuing in service as the guest faculty and, therefore, his application should not have been dismissed on being over age and, the necessary relaxation should have been granted in his case.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued before this Court that the Schedule II of the advertisement provides for age relaxation for a period of seven years upto a maximum period of seven years to a retrenched Government servant and his case stands on better footing than the retrenched Government servant, and, therefore, age relaxation should be granted to him.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his conte
1. Union Public Service Commission v. Dr. Jamuna Kurup and others = [(2008) 11 SCC 10]
2. Dr. Ami Lai Bhat v. State of Rajasthan and others = [(1997)6 SCC 614]
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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.