2025:CGHC:10540 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) No. 4086 of 2015 Rajesh Sharma, S/o Shri Gajanand Sharma, aged about 40 Years, R/o Ward No. 13, Beldarpara, Post Office Main Post Office Champa, Police Station Champa, Civil And Revenue District Janjgeer Champa Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Panchayat And Rural Welfare, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur Chhattisgarh 2. The Collector/ District Programm Coordinator M G N R E G A, District Jangir Champa, Chhattisgarh 3. The Zila Panchayat, Through The Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat Janjgir Champa, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 4. Naresh Kumar Singraul, S/o Late Vedram, aged about 29 Years R/o. Village And Post Girdhauna, Police Station And Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 5. Vijyendra Kumar Gabel, S/o Shri Sundal Lal Gabel, aged about 32 Years, R/o. Village Navapara Khurd, Post Nandaur Khurd, Police Station And Tahsil Sakti, District Janjgeer Champa Chhattisgarh 6. Nawdha Singh Sidar, S/o Shri Devi Singh Sidar, aged about 33 Years, R/o. Ward No. 11, Gaura Chauwk, Malkharauda, Post, Police Station And Tahsil Malkharauda, District Janjgeer Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Roop Naik, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : Shri Abhishek Singh, P.L. . For Respondent No. 3 : Shri Nitesh Sahu, Advocate apepared on behalf of Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent No.4 & 6 : Shri Vinod Kumar Tondey, Advocate. ASHISH TIWARI Digitally signed by ASHISH TIWARI Date: 2025.04.22 18:03:40 +0530 -2- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order on Board 28/03/2025 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for the following relief : (10.1)That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/mandamus/direction to the respondents authorities to consider the candidature of the petitioner for post of Assistant Grade-3 and set aside/ quash the order dated 13.10.2015 Annexure P-l and order dated 26.10.2015 Annexure P-2 issued by the respondent No.3. (10.2)That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/ mandamus/ direction to the respondents authorities to reject the candidature of the respondent No. 4 to 6 for post of Assistant Grade-3. (10.3)That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate writ/ mandamus/ direction to the respondents authorities to grant age relaxation in additional 5 years in view of Annexure P-10 and experience benefit additional 4 years in view of Annexure P-9 and the petitioner is entitle for age relaxation about age of 44 years for post of Assistant Grade-3. (10.4)That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to pass any appropriate orders/ directions in favour of the petitioner looking to the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that an advertisement dated 10/08/2015 (Annexure-P-4) was published by the respondent No.2 inviting application for appointment of various post including the post of Assistant Grade- 3. According to the conditions of the advertisement, the candidate making an application for the said post should be more than 21 years and less than 35 years as on 01/01/2015. He submits that the date of birth of the petitioner is -3- 10/10/1974 and certain age relaxation have been provided by the State Government in light of the circular dated 30/01/2012 (Annexure – P-9) by which the contract employee were given age relaxation to the period for which they served as contract employee. Thereafter as a one time measure age relaxation of 05 years was also granted by the State Government vide circular dated 27/09/2013 (Annexure P-10). He further submits that the petitioner worked as contract employee more than 04 years in light of the circular dated - 30/01/2012 (Annexure – P-9), petitioner was entitled for age relaxation for more than 40 years. However, the candidature of the petitioner was wrongly rejected by the respondent. Therefore he prays that the relief as prayed by the petitioner may be granted. 3. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents submits that the condition with regard to age relaxation in the advertisement 10/08/2015 (Annexure-P-4) is very clear and categorical that the candidate should be more than 21 years and the maximum age for making an application is 35 years as on 01/01/2015. Even if the age relaxation is granted to the petitioner as one time measurement in light of circular dated 30/01/2012 (Annexure – P – 9), the maximum age can be considered to be 40 years. Admittedly, the petitioner is more than 41 years, therefore his candidature is rightly rejected. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents appended. 5. The relevant clause of the advertisement dated 10/08/2015 clause of age limit is as under:- vk;q lhek %& NRrhlx<+ flfoy lsok ¼lafonk HkrhZ fu;e½ 2012 ,oa lkekU; iz’kklu foHkkx NRrhlx<+ 'kklu ds i= Øekad@,Q 3&2@2002@1&3 u;k jk;iqj] fnukad 27-09-2013 ds vuqlkj fnukad 01-01-2015 dks U;wure vk;q lhek 21 o"kZ ,oa vf/kdre vk;q lhek 35 o"kZ gksuh pkfg, A N-x- 'kklu ds fu;ekuqlkj mPpre vk;q lhek esa tkfr oxZ vtk@vttk@vfio@efgyk@fu%’kDrtu@Hkw-iw- lS- vkfn dks NwV fn;k tkosxk A -4- 6. The relevant clause of the circular dated 30/01/2012 (Annexure P-9) is as under:- 2@ mijksDr fLFkfr dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, jkT; 'kklu }kjk ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd lafonk ij fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa dks 'kkldh; lsok esa vkosnu i= izLrqr djus gsrq fu/kkZfjr vf/kdre vk;qlhek esa mrus o"kZ dh NwV nh tk;s ftrus o"kZ mlus lafonk ds :i esa lsok dh gS A ;g NwV vf/kdre 38 o"kZ dh vk;qlhek rd jgsxh A and 27/09/2013 (Annexure P-10) is as under:- 3@ rn~uqlkj ,rn~}kjk funsZ’k fn, tkrs gSa fd lHkh foHkkxksa esa lh/kh Hkjrh ds inksa ij dh tkus okyh vkxkeh Hkjrh esa dsoy ,d ckj ds fy, NRrhlx<+ ds LFkkuh; fuokfl;ksa ds fy, vf/kdre vk;q lhek 35 o"kZ esas 5 o"kZ dh NwV nh tkdj vf/kdre vk;q lhek 40 o"kZ fu/kkZfjr dh tk, A fo’ks"k oxksZa ds fy, vf/kdre vk;q lhek esa ns; vU; NwV ;Fkkor ykxw jgsaxh] fdUrq ,slh NwV dks feykdj vf/kdre vk;q lhek 45 o"kZ ls vf/kd ugha gksxh A 7. In conjoint reading of the above it is quite manifest that at the most the petitioner could be given age relaxation once of 05 years in light of circular dated 15/09/2015 (Annexure P-5). At any stage of the circular dated 30/01/2020 (Annexure P-9) can be benefited to maximum age of 38 years. Admittedly in the present case the petitioner was more than 40 years of age and he was aged at about 41 years, therefore this Court does not find any good ground to grant relief to the petitioner, therefore, the petition fails and dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Ashish