Advocates:
['MANIK SINGH YADAV', '', 'N L SHRIVASTAVA', 'AJAY SHRIVASTAVA', 'SOMKANT VERMA', 'A G', '', 'CHANDRESH SHRIVASTAVA', 'KISHORE BHADURI', 'PAWAN KESHARWANI', 'SHIVENDU PANDYA', 'GOVIND DEWANGAN']

1

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

WPS No. 2321 of 2009

Gaind Ram Sahu, Aged about 40 years, S/o. Ghasiya Ram Sahu,

R/o. Magarload (Kurud), District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State of Chhattisgarh, thorough: Secretary, Panchayat & Welfare

Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, District Raipur,

Chhattisgarh.

2. Janpad Panchayat, Magarload, Through Chief Executive Officer,

Janpad Panchayat Magarload, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

3. Rupendra Kumar Sahu, S/o. Vishnu Ram Sahu, Shiksha Karmi

Grade-III, Primary School, Village Mohera, Janpad Panchayat

Magarload, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

4. Sanjay Kumar Sahu, Shiksha Karmi Grade-III, Primary School,

Nawagaon (Dhao), Janpad Panchayat Magarload, District Dhamtari,

Chhattisgarh

----Respondents

For Petitioner

:

Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate

For State

:

Mr. Dheeraj Wankhede, G.A.

For respective Respondents

:

Mr. Govind Dewangan, Advocate

Ms. Shreya Mishra, Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

Order on Board

13/08/2018

1.

The grievance of the petitioner in the instant case is that the

petitioner has been arbitrarily held ineligible from appointment on the

post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III in the recruitment process which was

initiated in the year 2008 holding the petitioner to be age barred.

2.

The brief facts of the case relevant for adjudication of the present

case is that an advertisement was issued by the respondents for

filling up of the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-III on 09.01.2008. The

last date for submission of the forms as per the advertisement was

09.02.2008. The terms and conditions determining the eligibility

2

criteria was as was provided under the recruitment rules under the

Chhattisgarh Panchayat Shiksha Karmies (Recruitment and

Conditions of Services) Rules, 2007 and all those circulars/

instructions issued by the State Government from time to time. Under

the Rules the maximum age limit for recruitment was 35 years. The

petitioner’s date of birth was 14.07.1968 and on the date when the

advertisement was published and even on the last date that was

prescribed under the advertisement, the petitioner was below 40

years. The petitioner belonged to the OBC category and therefore

the petitioner was entitled for the age relaxation provided by the

State Government for a period of 5 years.

3.

Thus the maximum age limit within which the petitioner could seek

employment was 40 years. The contention of the petitioner is that

since in the advertisement there was no cutoff date prescribed for

determining the age of the petitioner, then under the legal position as

it stands in the light of the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court, the last date of submission of forms would be determined as

the cutoff date. That in the instant case the last date of submission of

forms was 09.02.2008 and on 09.02.2008 the admitted position so

far as the age of the petitioner was 39 years and 8 months. The

respondents however determined the age taking the cutoff date to be

the first day of January the year following the date of written

examination i.e. 01.01.2009.

4.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in the

present writ petition stands squarely decided by the decision of this

Court in the case of “Sandeep Kumar Shrivastava & Anr. v. State

of Chhattisgarh & Ors.” in WPS No. 4829/2008 which was decided

3

on 22/02/2010. The only issue which now require to be considered is

whether the stand of the respondents that the cutoff date has to be

presumed to be 01.01.2009 instead of last date of submission of the

forms as per the advertisement.

5.

It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of the judgment of

the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Ashok Kumar Sonkar v.

Union of India & Ors.” [2007 4 SCC 54], wherein in paragraph

No.20 it has been held as under:-

“20. Possession of requisite educational qualificati