JAGDEV SINGH Vs. DIRECTOR LOCAL BODIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On July 7, 1998 the Municipal Council, Qadian, advertised a post of Clerk. The applications had td be submitted by the candidates by July 9, 1998. The candidates had to be interviewed on July 10, 1998. It was further provided that the candidates must fulfil the qualifications and conditions as laid down in the instructions issued by the Punjab State Government. According to the petitioner the instructions with regard to the educational qualifications etc. had been circulated by the Directorate of Local Government, Punjab, to the various Municipal Councils and Corporations vide letter dated October 29, 1996. In respect of age etc, the instructions have been issued by the Punjab Government vide letter dated May 22, 1996. It was provided that the upper age limit shall be 35 years in the technical and non-technical posts. On this basis the petitioner contends that respondent No. 4 who was more than 40 years of age by the last date for submission of applications was not eligible for appointment to the post of Clerk. It has been further alleged that she was not only considered selected as she is the wife of one of the Municipal Councillor Mr. Som Nath. Persons who were otherwise eligible and were better qualified were rejected. Accordingly, the petitioner prays that the selection and appointment of respondent No. 4 quashed.

(2.) Separate written statements have been filed on behalf of the Municipal Council and the 4th respondent. In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 3, it has been inter-alia averred that respondent No. 4 was "born on 25.11.1957 and the age in terms of Punjab Government instructions is 40 Years and therefore, she was over-aged at the time of interview by 8 months. The unanimous resolution of the Municipal Council to seek relaxation in age was approved by the Government". A copy of the resolution passed by the Municipal Council has been produced as Annexure R2/1 with the written statement. It has been further averred that this resolution was approved by the Directorate of Local Bodies vide letter dated September 18, 1998. It has been also averred that respondent No. 4 belongs to the category of Backward classes. The fact that her husband is a Municipal Councillor has not been disputed. However, it has been averred that he was not "present when the Municipal Council unanimously passed a resolution recommending the relaxation in age". The respondents maintain that relaxation having been granted, the appointment was legal and valid. She had actually joined on September 25, 1998. Therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed. On almost same lines is the reply filed by respondent No. 4.

(3.) Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.