B.S.CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THESE writ petitions have been filed for seeking direction to the respondents to consider the petitioners for appointments as Ayurvedic Medical Officer in pursuance to the Advertisement No. 1 of 2003-04 (Annexure-6), issued by the U.P. Public Service Commission exempting the petitioners from the upper age limit provided in the said Advertisement, or to grant relaxation in upper age limit for their consideration for the aforesaid post.
(2.) FACTS and circumstances giving rise to the case are that an Advertisement dated 11.7.1996 was issued by the U.P. Public Service Commission inviting application for filling up 398 posts of Ayurvedic Medical Officers from amongst scheduled caste candidates or filling up the backlog of vacancies belonging to the said reserved category. Petitions applied in pursuance of the said Advertisement and after completing selection in accordance with law their names were included in the select list published by the Commission on 9th June, 1997. However, no appointment letter could be issued to either of the successful candidates because of the interim order passed by this Court in Writ Petition. No. 30542 of 1996, wherein the said Advertisement had been challenged as provided for 100% reservation for scheduled caste candidates. This Court vide judgment and order dated 20.5.1998 quashed the said Advertisement while allowing the writ petition and further directed to re-advertise the said vacancies. Being aggrieved some of the successful candidates approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filling the Special Leave Petition No. 14567 of 1998, Satish Kumar and ors. v. State of U.P. and ors. and the same was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court by order dated 11.9.1998. The 81st Amendment Act, 2000 was passed on 9th June, 2000 inserting clause 4-B in Article 16 of the Constitution providing procedure for filling up the back long of vacancies for reserved categories. Vide impugned Advertisement dated 2Uh/27ih June, 2003, 4& I posts of Ayurvedic Medical Officers have been advertised only for the scheduled caste candidates and it included 389 vacancies advertised on 11.7.1996. However, petitioners have become over-age and are not eligible to apply against the said Advertisement, Hence these petitions. Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has submitted that as the vacancies advertised vide impugned Advertisement includes the vacancies advertised earlier on 11.7.1996 and petitioner had been declared successful candidates therein, it is by the judgment and orders of the Courts that they could not be issued appointment letters and during this period they have become over-age, they cannot be deprived of their legitimate rights of being considered again against the vacancies advertised, particularly when the 81 st Amendment of the Constitution had been brought to provide the procedure of filling up such vacancies, Recruitment in U.P. Government Services (Age Limit) Rules. 1972 and Recruitment by U.P. Public Service Commission (Relaxation of Age Limit) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter called Rules, 1972 and 1992) enable the Government to provide relaxation of age in individual case or for candidates of a particular category, the petition deserves to be allowed.
(3.) ON the contraiy, Shri S.P. Kesarvvani, Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the Division Bench of this Court while delivering the judgment dated 20.5.1998 quashed the Advertisement No. 1/96-97 and the said judgment has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing the S.L.P. vide order dated 11.9.1998 and neither this Court nor Hon'ble Apex Court made an observation in favour of the petitioners that if the vacancies are re-advertised they may be given relaxation in age. Entertaining this petition would amount to reviewing the earlier judgment which is not permissible. More so, vacancies cannot be bifurcated year-wise and a candidate must possess the currently prescribed eligibility, including age etc. as on the last date of submitting the application forms as per the Advertisement. Rules, 1972 and 1992 are not attracted in this case for the reason that the Rules under which the appointments are made, already have provided 5 years relaxation in age to the candidates belonging to scheduled caste. Petition is devoid of any merit and is liable to be dismissed.;