SHESH NATH Vs. CANTONMENT BOARD
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
BARIN GHOSH,.J. -
(1.) IN the present appeal, existence of Rule 5 -B (2) of the
Cantonment Fund Servants Rules 1937 has not been denied. The said Rule
authorizes grant of relaxation in the age limit, subject to any
directions issued by the Central Government in that behalf. In the
appeal, there is also no dispute that the Central Government issued a
Circular on 29th August, 1989 and, thereby, directed giving of relaxation
to the people in government service for appointment in Group 'C posts.
In the present appeal, there is also no dispute that respondent no. 2 was
within the age, thus, directed to be relaxed by the said Circular dated
29th August, 1989. The only contention in the present appeal is that in one advertisement issued earlier, it was indicated that existing
employees will be entitled to relaxation, but in the advertisement, which
was responded by the appellant, there was no such mention. It has been
contended, accordingly, that a conscious decision was taken, when the
advertisement, responded by the appellant, was issued to the effect that
no relaxation will be given. It was also contended that any appointment,
contrary to the terms contained in the advertisement, is per se illegal.
In the circumstances, it has been stated that this Court should set aside
the judgment and order under appeal, by which the writ petition, filed by
the appellant challenging the appointment of respondent no. 2 on the
ground that he was more than the maximum age limit prescribed in the
advertisement, has been dismissed.
(2.) LEARNED Judge, while dealing with the matter, has stated that the terms and conditions or the qualifications mentioned in the
advertisement are required to be made known to the public, who are
applying for the posts and such qualifications are not required to be
indicated in the advertisement for the departmental candidates since the
departmental candidates are covered by their own Rules and Regulations,
which are not required to be spelt out, though in the interest of
justice, a mention should be made in the advertisement that the
departmental candidates could also apply, so that the candidates from the
open market are made aware of the said fact.
(3.) IN the instant case, Rule 5 -B (2) of the said Rules, authorized the Central Government to issue directions pertaining to
relaxation of age limits generally or specifically. In exercise of such
statutory power, the Central Government has granted relaxation by the
said Circular dated 29th August, 1989. In law, when the conditions of
eligibility are prescribed by law, prescription, thus made, must be read
in the advertisement. In the circumstances, despite not mentioning in the
advertisement that such relaxation is available to people already in
service of the Central Government, the same is required, in law, to be
read in the advertisement.
In the circumstances, there is nothing further to be done in the appeal. The appeal, accordingly, fails and the same is dismissed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.