- (1.) HEARD Shri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Shamim Ahmad, Advocate holding brief of Shri P.N.Rai, learned counsel for respondent no.3 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1,2 and 4.
(2.) THE petitioners herein, appeared in a selection for appointment on class IV posts in the respondent Kishori Raman Post Graduate, Girls Degree College, Mathura which is affiliated with Dr. B.R. Ambedkar University, Agra (in short "the University"). Prior to the selection and appointment, the respondent no.3 sought clarification from the Employment Exchange, Mathura as to the minimum and the maximum age limit for class IV post. Vide letter dated 26.8.1999, it was informed that for the class IV post, the minimum age limit is 18 years and the maximum age limit is 32 years subject to such relaxation as is admissible to reserved category candidates. Thereafter, another clarification was sought from the University, which vide letter dated 6.4.2000, also responded that as per Statute 20.07 the minimum age is 18 years but the maximum age has not been provided for class IV post. However, as there is no provision for class IV employee in the Statutes therefore, the Rules prescribed for the government employees become applicable and as per the government rules, the maximum age limit is 32 years. Relevant rules are annexed at page 47 of the writ petition. Accordingly, the respondent no.3 proceeded to hold the selection wherein the petitioners participated and were found fit for appointment. They were issued appointment letters on 18.11.1999 subject to the approval of the Regional Higher Education Officer. The then Regional Higher Education Officer Dr. J.P. Sharma passed the impugned order declining to approve the appointment of the petitioners, firstly on the ground that the age limit prescribed in Statute 20.07 had been violated and secondly that the prior approval as contemplated in the letter of the Director of Education dated 1.5.1999 had not been obtained before issuing appointment order dated 18.11.1999.
(3.) INSPITE of several opportunities no counter affidavit has been filed by respondents no.1, 2 and 4. Respondent No.3, Principal of the college has filed a counter affidavit, supporting the claim of the petitioners. The contention of Shri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the petitioners is twofold: firstly, Statute 20.07 is not applicable to class IV post, therefore, reference thereof in the impugned order is misconceived. He further submits that as per the letter of the Employment Officer, Mathura dated 26.8.1999 and the University dated 6.4.2000, the minimum age limit for class IV post was 18 years and the maximum age limit was 32 years which is the age limit prevalent in the State Government. In the absence of a clear stipulation in the Statutes regarding the class IV post, the recital in the impugned order is not sustainable. The second contention of Shri Goyal is that under Statute 20.03 (4) there is no requirement of prior approval but the only requirement is that the appointment of the employee shall be subject to the approval of the Director (Higher Education) or an officer authorised by him in this behalf. He further submits that in fact, Statute 20.03 refers to class III posts and does not specifically refer to class IV post but, nevertheless, he submits that there is no provision which requires prior approval in the case of class IV post therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained on this ground also. He further submits that the Director has no jurisdiction and power to determine the terms and conditions, including the terms of recruitment of class IV employees by prescribing a condition of prior approval before issuance of the appointment order, therefore, the reference in the impugned order to a letter of the Director (Higher Education) dated 1.5.1999 is without any legal basis. In view of the aforesaid he submits that the impugned order disapproving the appointment of the petitioners is not sustainable and the petitioners are liable to be treated as validly appointed. They have been gravely prejudiced by the illegal and arbitrary action of the respondent no.4 as they were not allowed to work only because of the impugned order dated 29.6.2000.;