1 2025:CGHC:1442 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 151 of 2025 Bhooshan Prasad Karsh S/o Punwa Ram Karsh, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Ward No. 21 H.N. 1315, Old Kanshi Nagar Korba Tahsil and District - Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary Department of Skill Development Technical Education and Employment Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - The Director Employment and Training Indravati Bhawan Block - IV First Floor Nava Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Vyapan Bhawan North Block Sector - 19 Atal Nagar Nava Raipur (C.G.). ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For State/ : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer Respondents No.1 & 2 For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 09.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents No.1 and 2 as well YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.01.10 18:43:58 +0530 2 as Mr. Avinash Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3. 2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the rejection of his candidature by Respondent No.2- The Director Employment and Training Indravati Bhawan Block - IV First Floor Nava Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.). The candidature of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 22.02.2024 with a remark “Age Limit Over”. 3. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside the memo dated 22.02.2024 in respect of petitioner and direct the respondent authorities to consider the name for petitioner for post of training Machinist officer as per application. 10.2 That, other relief which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 4. The facts of the present case are that respondent No.2 issued an advertisement on 05.05.2023 (effective from 06.05.2023) for recruitment to the post of Training Officer 23 streams. The petitioner has submitted his application form for the said post as he had the requisite qualification for the advertised post, thereafter, the petitioner participated in the written examination. The result was declared and the petitioner was in the list of 3 successful candidate. The petitioner was called for verification of the documents and the list of required documents was also appended to the call letter. The petitioner appeared before the respondent authorities for verification of the documents. The petitioner belongs to the ‘Other Backward Class (Non-creamy Layer)” and a domicile of Chhattisgarh. Despite verification of documents, the respondent authorities have not issued appointment orders in favour of the petitioner on the ground that at the time of submission of application form, the age of the petitioner was 44 years 10 months & 27 days and according to one of the conditions i.e. condition No. 5(ii), he was overage. 5. Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner is the permanent resident of Chhattisgarh; he belongs to the OBC (Non-creamy layer) category & a domicile of Chhattisgarh and at the time of submission of the application form, his age was 44 years 10 months & 27 days. He further submitted that according to clause 5 of the advertisement, the age limit for permanent resident of the State of Chhattisgarh was 18 years to 40 years. He also submitted that according to clause 5(i), the aspirants of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and OBC (Non- Creamy Layer) would get relaxation in age up to 5 years. It is further contended that according to Clause 5(ii), the maximum age limit for permanent/temporary/work-charged and 4 contingency-paid employees of boards or under the State of Chhattisgarh was 38 years. It is also contended that the respondent authorities committed an error of law in holding that the maximum age limit for a contingency-paid employee or work-charged employee would be 38 years and they are not entitled to get a concession of 5 years in age as mentioned in Clause 5(i) & 5(ii) of the advertisement and condition for contractual employee not mentioned in the advertisement. He would refer to the Important Note ( महत्वपू्ቓ टि प) (i), which says that after extending the benefit of all concession/relaxation, the age of a candidate should not be more than 45 years. He further submitted that the age of the petitioner was 44 years 10 months & 27 days, which is below 45 years; therefore, he is within the zone of consideration. It is further contended that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Training Officer. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, learned State counsel would oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that a specific condition was inserted with regard to permanent/ temporary/ worked-charged or contingency-paid employees working within the State of Chhattisgarh; the maximum age limit provided for such aspirants was 38 years. He further submitted that the age of the 5 petitioner was more than 38 years; therefore, his candidature was rejected. Mr. Kesharwani would refer to Rules 8(I)(d) (i)&(ii) of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Training (Non-Gazetted) Class III Service Recruitment Rules, 2014, which deals with the age relaxation for the employees of the State Government. He further submitted that according to this rule, the age of the candidate who is a permanent or temporary Government servant should not be more than 38 years and a candidate holding a temporary post and applying for another post should not be more than 38 years of age. He would also submit that since the age of the petitioner was more than 38 years; his candidature was rejected by the respondents. It is also contended that the rule will prevail over circular. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 8. Rule 8 (I) (b) says that the upper age limit shall be relaxable up to a maximum of five years if a candidate belongs to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and O.B.C. (Non-Creamy Layer). Rule 8 (I) (c) further says that the upper age limit shall also be relaxable up to a maximum of 10 years for women candidates. A conjoint reading of Rules 8 (I)(b) and (I)(d) would make it clear that a candidate holding a temporary or permanent post 6 with the State of Chhattisgarh applying for another post should not be more than 38 years of age, but if the candidates are members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes, they will get additional relaxation up to the age of five years. In the rules as well as in the advertisement, there is a specific provision that after extending all relaxation, the age should not exceed 45 years, meaning thereby, a candidate belonging to a reserved category shall get an additional age relaxation of five years along with relaxation which is provided to a candidate of general category. 9. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, in the considered opinion of this Court, the respondent authorities wrongly rejected the candidature of the petitioner; therefore, the decision taken by the respondent authorities whereby the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected is hereby quashed. The respondent No.2 is directed to consider case of the petitioner and to pass necessary orders within a period of four months’ from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. With the aforesaid observation(s), the instant writ petition is disposed off. Sd/- Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh