1 2025:CGHC:956 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 8537 of 2024 1 - Mamta Dewangan W/o Shri Mukesh Kumar Dewangan Aged About 39 Years R/o- H.No. 171, Ganesh Kirana Store, Kadampara, Pratappur, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Employment And Training Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate Of Employment And Training Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Block-4, First Floor, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Divisional Joint Director Employment And Training Division Surguja, Surguja, District Surguja (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kulesh Sahu, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J Order on Board Digitally signed by RAVI SHANKAR MANDAVI 2 07/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Kulesh Sahu, learned Panel Lawyer for State/respondent. 2. By 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. 3. By this petition, this petitioner has sought following relief : “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set- aside/ quash the impugned order dated 05.10.2023 (Annexure-P/10) issued by the Director, Directorate of Employment and Training, Raipur. 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 recruitment rules and advertisement clause 5(i) & 5(v) and important note (i) of advertisement for the post of Training Officer (Computer Operator and Programing Assistant), thereby consider the candidature of petitioner as eligible & consider the candidature of petitioner for appointment on the post of Training Officer (Computer Operator and Programing Assistant) 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.” 3 4. Brief facts of the present case are that respondent No.2 issued an advertisement on 06.05.2023 for recruitment to the post of Training Officer in 23 streams. The petitioner submitted his application form as she 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 petitioner appeared before the respondent authorities for verification of the documents. The petitioner being a female candidate claimed her rights as 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 candidate has crossed 38 years of age which is maximum are prescribed for the said posts. 5. Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner is the permanent residents of Chhattisgarh and being a female candidate, her candidature cannot be overlooked as she is a domicile of Chhattisgarh and at the time of submission of the application form, her age as on 01.01.2023 was 39 years, 09 months and 09 days. He further submitted that as per circular dated 14.06.2024 issued by the 4 Directorate, Employment and Training, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh, whereby the State Government has rectified age limit and has accepted that maximum age limit to the original resident of Chhattisgarh would be 45 years. It is also contended that the respondent authorities committed an error of law in holding that the maximum age limit in the advertisement and condition for contractual employee was also 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 well as 14.06.2024 issued by the Directorate, Employment and Training, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, Chhattisgarh, as she is eligible person for the said post. He would refer to the Important Note (महत्वपू्ቓ टि पू) (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 39 years, 09 months and 09 days which is below 45 years; therefore, she 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, learned counsel appearing for the State would oppose. He would submit that a specific condition was inserted 5 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, her candidature was rejected. 7. Mr. Sahu 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; her candidature was rejected by the respondents. It is also contended that the rule will prevail over circular. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 9. 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 6 more than 38 years of age, but looking to the circular dated 14.06.2024, the State Government has rectified age limit and has accepted that maximum age limit to the original resident of Chhattisgarh would be 45 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 female candidate being original resident of Chhattisgarh State shall get an additional age relaxation upto 45 years. 10. 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. 3 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. 11. With the aforesaid observation(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed off. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Ravi Mandavi