IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-29869-2025 Date of Decision: 08.10.2025 SARITA -PETITIONER V/S STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Munish Bhardwaj, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Sahil R. Bakshi, AAG, Punjab for respondent no.1.

Ms.Sonia Madan, Advocate, for respondents no.2 and 3 ****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

1. Through the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a challenge is thrown to the order dated 06.08.2025 (Annexure P-16), passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Jalandhar (respondent no.3), whereby the representation dated 03.06.2025 (Annexure P-15) qua the petitioner for her claim to appoint/adjust against the vacant post of Clerks on ad hoc basis was rejected, on the ground of being overaged.

2. Succinctly stated, that the petitioner was earlier appointed as Clerk on ad hoc basis on 24.08.2015, and her services were subsequently, terminated on 01.05.2018, which was never put to challenge by the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was appointed as Weeding Clerk on contract basis at a fixed salary of Rs.13,000 on 18.02.2019. However, on account of her personal difficulty to continue with the said job, she resigned on 04.03.2020. Thereafter, she again applied through an application dated 20.06.2020 for re-appointment. Thereupon, the authority concerned, considering the requirement for the weeding work, re-appointed the petitioner as Weeding Clerk on contract basis at a fixed salary of Rs.13,000/- on 08.07.2020. The petitioner is still working on this assignment.

3. During this period respondent no.3, advertised various posts for Clerks to be filled up on ad hoc basis. The recent public notice was issued in 2025 (Annexure P-21), and the last date for receipt of the application in the office respondent no.3, was fixed as 03.10.2025, upto

5:00 p.m.

4. The similarly situated employees had earlier approached this Court, by filing a petition bearing No.CWP-15413-2025, which was disposed of by a co-ordinate bench vide order dated 27.05.2025 (Annexure P-14), with a direction upon the authority concerned, to consider their representations. In compliance of the said order, the representations of the petitioner and co-employees, were duly considered, and the same were rejected vide impugned order, as the said employees have become overage, for being considered for the post advertised.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, fetching grievance from the rejection order (supra), submits that similarly situated employees earlier approached this Court by filing CWP-9174-2018, wherein, a specific direction was passed upon the authority concerned, vide order dated 22.01.2025 (Annexure P-12), to allow the said employees (petitioners therein) to continue to discharge their duties on the posts, on which they are still working, till the work on said post exists, subject to availability of work henceforth, as well as the satisfactory work and conduct of the petitioners therein.

6. He further submits that there was also an observation with regard to the employees who were not working at that time, wherethrough, a liberty was granted to the Session Division concerned, to consider the claim of such employees. To the strength of this observations, he submits that since the petitioner was working as Weeding Clerk, so she should now be allowed to participate in the fresh recruitment process as advertised or be adjusted against the vacant post of Clerk.

7. He also draws attention of this Court towards Rule 5 of the Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Service Condition) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1994'), to submit that second proviso attached with clause 1 of Rule 5, grants relaxation upto 45 years, in the case the persons already in the employment. Since the present petitioner is already employed with the Sessions Division concerned (respondent no.3) on contract basis as a Weeding Clerk, therefore, petit