1 2025:CGHC:1667 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 179 of 2025 Yogesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Tija Ram Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o C.S.E.B. Colony East Korba Q. No. NE/105 Tehsil Korba District - Korba (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through the Secretary Employment and Training Department Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Nava Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate of Employment and Training Department Indrawati Bhawan Block – 4, First Floor, Nava Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Divisional Joint Director, Employment and Training Division Bastar District - Bastar (C.G.) ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui Advocate For State/Respondents : Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 10.01.2025 1. Heard Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Saumitra Kesharwani, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondents. 2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the rejection of his candidature by Respondent No.2- Director Directorate of Employment and Training Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Block – 4, First Floor Nava Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.). The YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.01.10 19:17:34 +0530 2 candidature of the petitioner has been rejected vide order dated 30.12.2024 for appointment on the post of Training Officer (Fitter) on the round that the petitioner is working as contractual Training Officer and crossed the age limit of 38 years. 3. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned rejection information/list whereby the candidate of petitioner has been rejected for appointment on the post of Training Officer (Fitter) (Annexure P/1). 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authority to grant the benefit of age relaxation to the petitioner as per clause 5(i) and important note (i) of advertisement for the post of Training Officer (Fitter), thereby consider the candidature of petitioner as eligible & consider the candidature of petitioner for appointment on the post of Training Officer (Fitter) with all consequential benefits.” 10.3 This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other writ/writs, order/orders, relief/reliefs in favour of the petitioners, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the petitioners. 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. 3 The result was declared and the petitioner was in the list of 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 42 years 10 months & 19 days and according to one of the conditions i.e. condition No. 5(ii), he was overage. 5. Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, 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 42 years 10 months & 19 days and he is working as contract training. 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 contingency- 4 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 he is 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 42 years 10 months & 19 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 (Fitter). 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 5 was 38 years. He further submitted that the age of the 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 respondent authorities. 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 with the State of Chhattisgarh applying for another post should not be more than 6 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/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Yogesh