2025:JHHC:10079 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (S). No. 1422 of 2025 Sasank Sahis, aged about 41 years, S/O late Ambuj Sahis, R/O Village – Dubrajpur, P.O. – Madhabpur, P.S.- Patamda, District – East Singhbhum. … … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand. 2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Office at Project Building, P.O. – Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District – Ranchi. 3. The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, Office at Project Building, P.O. – Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District – Ranchi. 4. The Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, Office at Project Building, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S. – Jagarnathpur, District – Ranchi. 5. The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, Ranchi, Office at Police Head Quarter, P.O.- Dhurwa, P.S. – Jagarnathpur, District – Ranchi. 6. The District Magistrate-cum-Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, P.O. & P.S. – Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum. 7. The Superintendent of Police, East Singhbhum, P.O. & P.S. – Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District- East Singhbhum. 8. The Deputy Collector (Incharge) (General Section), East Singhbhum, P.O. & P.S. – Sakchi, Town Jamshedpur, District – East Singhbhum. 9. The Sub Divisional Officer, Dhalbhum, P.O. & P.S. – Dhalbhum, District – East Singhbhum. 10. The Circle Officer, Patamda, P.O. & P.S. – Patamda, District – East Singhbhum. 11. The Officer in Charge, Patamda, P.O. & P.S. – Patamda, District – East Singhbhum. … … Respondents --- CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. --- For the Petitioner : Mr. M. M. Sharma, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Manish Kumar, Sr. SC-II : Ms. Sunita Kumar, AC to SC-II --- 04/25th March 2025 1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties at length. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court for quashment of Annexure – 7, which is the rejection list published by the respondents especially entry no. 41 whereby the claim for appointment of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of over age. 3. The petitioner has applied for the post of Chowkidar pursuant to the Advt. No. 01 of 2024 (Annexure -5) issued from the Office of 2025:JHHC:10079 2 District Magistrate – cum- Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, at Jamshedpur but the application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of over age. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the note of Clause No. 5 of the said advertisement, which prescribes age limit, the petitioner is entitled to get the age relaxation for 10 years which the respondents have not provided to him. He further submits that if ten years’ age relaxation is given to the petitioner, it cannot be said that the petitioner is over age. He further submits that since he was earlier working as Chowkidar without pay, he is entitled for age relaxation. 5. Learned counsel for the State submits that there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner by any chance can get the benefit of the exceptions. He further submits that neither he had been employed by the department on honorarium nor he had approached this Court at any point of time. He further submits that he is also not disabled to get the benefit of age relaxation. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the father of the petitioner was a Chowkidar who died in harness and the petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment but no decision was taken. 7. The petitioner thereafter has applied pursuant to an advertisement published and sought appointment on the post of Chowkidar. This is an open advertisement. The claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of over age. The date of birth of the petitioner is admittedly 01.01.1983. As per the advertisement, the calculation of the age should be made as on 01.07.2024, which was the cut-off date. Thus, on 01.07.2024, the petitioner was admittedly more than 40 years of age. 8. The age limit has been prescribed in Note – 5 of the said advertisement. As per the aforesaid provision, minimum age of the applicant should be 18 years and the maximum age will be as follows:- I. Un-Reserved – 35 years 2025:JHHC:10079 3 II. Backward Classes / Extremely Backward Classes - 37 years III. Female (UR /BC /EBC) – 38 years IV. Female and Male (SC /ST) – 40 years V. Economically Backward Classes- 35 years. 9. Admittedly, since the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste Category, the upper age limit would be 40 years in the case of the petitioner. There is a note to the said Clause, which provides that if a person is working as a Chowkidar without pay, then his age will be relaxed by ten years. Further there is another relaxation given to the persons with disabilities in the upper age limit. The age of person with disabilities in all these categories, has received a relaxation of ten years. Admittedly, the petitioner is not a person with disabilities. Further it is clear from the record that he was not working with the respondents though the petitioner claims that he was working without there being any document and that too without pay. Thus, he is not entitled to get ten years’ age relaxation as per the advertisement. 10. Further I am not in agreement with the argument of the petitioner. If a person is working in any department, there has to be an employer / employee relationship and that should be reflected in some documents. The petitioner has not produced any material / document to suggest that there was an employer / employee relationship, be it even without pay between the petitioner and the respondents. 11. In a very recent order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 19648 of 2023 [Joint Secretary Central Board of Secondary Education & Another Vs. Raj Kumar Mishra & Others] decided on 17th March 2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that for a person to claim employment under any organization, a direct Master - Servant relationship has to be established. Paragraph no. 7 of the said judgment is quoted hereinbelow:- 7. This is not only a very simplistic approach, but also a totally erroneous approach in law. For a person to claim employment under any organization, a direct master – servant relationship has to be established on paper. In the present 2025:JHHC:10079 4 case(s), admittedly, the only document, which the private respondents have in their favour, is showing that they were posted at various places doing different nature of work. 12. Therefore, in this case, I find that there is no master / servant relationship ever established between the petitioner and the respondents, which could attract age relaxation of further ten years in terms of the notification. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of the aforesaid upper age relaxation. Admittedly, since the petitioner has crossed 40 years of age, as per the advertisement, his rejection by the respondents is justified. Therefore, I find no merit in this writ petition. 13. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. (ANANDA SEN, J.) Aditi/- AFR