Decided on December 21,1999

Gh Ahmad Kumar Appellant
STATE Respondents


- (1.) PETITIONER was temporarily as a make shift arrangement appointed as VLW in the scale of 410 -700  and posted as such in Rafiabad block of Rural Development Department of the J&K State (Vide order 137/83 dated: 26.12.1983). Petitioner was asked to produce the matric certificate and other required certificates on 4 -1 -1984 (Annexure -B). Petitioner joined in Rafiabad block on 28.12.1983 and while examining his date of birth certificate, Assistant Commissioner Development Baramulla found petitioner over aged by two years 10 months and 8 days and recommended relaxation of his age to the Director Rural Development Srinagar respondent No.3 (Annexure C). Petitioner alleges that his case for relaxation of age has been declined by respondent No.2, where as the age bar of many other persons has been relaxed.
(2.) PETITIONER has cited annexure -D and annexure -E to show that the Government has exercised the powers to relax the age of other persons employed in Agriculture Rural Development Department. Though, the petitioner has not placed on record any order to demonstrate that his age bar is a declined but in para 5 of the petition is referred a note allegedly recorded on the file of the case, in terms as under: - It is found that regularisation of appointment of Sri Kumar by way of relaxation of age is not justified. It is hereby ordered that the services of the said Shri Gulam Ahmad Kumar stand terminated. 
(3.) THIS note petitioner treats as on order declining relaxation in age, is challenged in this petition on the ground that the petitioner rendered six years continuance service with the department and refusal to relax his age after such a long period is discriminatory. Moreso, when the age bar of other persons referred in annexure ËœDâ„¢ and ËœEâ„¢ has been relaxed. Petitioner could not be thrown out of service at his back and in violation of law. Petitioner prays for a relaxation of his age bar and to restrain respondents from terminating his services and for quashment of referred alleged order of respondent No.2, which order, without specifying the order as such or its contents is stated yet to be issued.  Respondents despite opportunities at pre and post admission stage have failed to file reply/counter. Respondents have not even appeared to argue the matter.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.