1 2025:CGHC:608 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8538 of 2024 • Ainak Ram Sahu S/o Shri Mangal Ram Sahu Aged About 44 Years R/o House No. 17, Ward No. 01 Gouri Goura Chowk Bendri Abhanpur Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) Pin Code - 493661 ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh through The Secretary Department Of Technical Education Government Of Chhattisgarh Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.). 2. Directorate of Employment And Training Through Director Employment and Training Indravati Bhawan Block -04 First Floor Nava Raipur Atal Nagar Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) Pin Code – 492002. 3. Director Employment and Training Directorate of Employment And Training Indravati Bhawan Block - 04 First Floor Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) Pin Code – 492002. 4. Document Verification Committee Through Its Chairman i.e. Joint Director (Training), Industrial Institute Regional Office Raipur Area Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) Pin Code 492002. 5. Joint Director (Training), Industrial Training Institute, Regional office Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Raipur Area Raipur District - Raipur (C.G) Pin Code – 492002. 6. Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Through Chairman Vyapam Bhawan North Block Sector - 19 Atal Nagar Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) Pin Code 492001. 7. Controller Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Through Director Vyapam Bhawan North Block Sector - 19, Atal Nagar Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) Pin Code 492001. 8. Chhattisgarh Infotech Promotion Society (Chips) Through Chief Executive Officer 3rd Floor State Data Center Building Opposite New Circuit House, Civil Lines, District - Raipur (C.G.) Pin Coder – 492001. ---- Respondents (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. K. Rohan, Advocate For State/respondents No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Suyashdhar Badgaiya, Dy. G.A. For Respondents No. 6 to 8 : Mr. Animesh Tiwari , Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 06.01.2025 1. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the rejection of his candidature by the Director, Employment and Training, New Raipur, Atal Nagar. The candidature of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has crossed 38 years of age and is not eligible in light of Clause 5 (ii) of the advertisement. 2. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “a) Call for the entire records pertaining to the present case. b) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing and setting 3 aside the impugned Order/Notification dated 25.08.2023 (ANNEXURE-P/1) (date of uploading) whereby the Petitioner's candidature has been rejected by giving the Reason: The Age Limit exceeded the Prescribed limit on 01.01.2023 (38 years) for Government Contract Employees. c) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned Order dated 13.10.2023 (ANNEXURE-P/2) whereby the Director, Employment & Training, Raipur (CG) has rejected/dismissed the Petitioner's Representation on the basis of the Circular dated 30.01.2012 (Annexure – P/6). d) Issue a Writ of Certiorari quashing and setting aside the impugned Order dated 14.11.2024 (ANNEXURE P/22) passed by the Document Verification Committee through its Chairman and Joint Director, Industrial Training Institute, Regional Office, Raipur Area, Raipur, District Raipur (CG) rejecting the candidature of the Petitioner on the basis of the Circular dated 30.01.2012 (Annexure - P/6) by holding the Petitioner to be more than 38 years of age. e) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities to consider the Candidature of the Petitioner for Appointment on 4 the Post of Training Officer – Electrician. f) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities to consider the Candidature of the Petitioner for Appointment on the Post of Training Officer Electrician preferably in Industrial Training Institute (ITI) Mana, Raipur in light of the provisions of Circular dated 30.08.2010 (Annexure-P/10). g) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent Authorities to pay an Amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the Petitioner as Compensation towards the hardships suffered by the Petitioner for approaching this Hon'ble Court 3 times for the same grievance. h) Grant the cost of the petition to the Petitioner. i) Grant any other relief as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case”. 3. The facts of the present case are that respondent No.2 issued an advertisement on 05.05.2023 for recruitment to the post of Training Officer in 23 streams. The petitioner submitted his application form 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 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 5 petitioner appeared before the respondent authorities for verification of the documents. The petitioner belongs to the ‘Other Backward Class (Non-creamy Layer) is a person with disability & 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 43 years and according to one of the conditions i.e. condition No. 5(ii), he was overage. 4. Mr. K. Rohan, counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner is the permanent residents of Chhattisgarh; he belongs to the OBC (Non-creamy layer) category, is a person with disability & a domicile of Chhattisgarh and at the time of submission of the application form, his age was 43 years. 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 & as per Clause 5 (ix) persons with Disability will get relaxation in age upto 5 years. It is further contended that according to Clause 5(ii), the maximum age limit for permanent/temporary/work-charged and 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 6 Clause 5(i), 5(ii) & 5 (ix) of the advertisement and condition for contractual employee not mentioned in the advertisement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorities may also be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner on the basis of circular dated 30.08.2010 as he is disabled person and it would be possible for him to do his duties in the near by place of his home district. 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 43 years 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. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. 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 petitioner was more than 38 years; therefore, his candidature was rejected. 6. Mr. Badgaiya 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, 7 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 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 8 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. 3 is directed to consider case of the petitioner and to pass necessary orders. 10. With the aforesaid observation(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of in terms of WPS No. 2523/2024. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat