- (1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents and perused the record.
(2.) On 20.1.2016, following order was passed:- "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Initially, following order was passed by this Court on 5.9.2012:- "The petitioner was selected under 35% quota for being promoted regular collection amin. However, the appointment could not be made because he became overage and the matter was forwarded to the State Government for relaxation of the age. The State Government vide order dated 30.12.2011 granted relaxation in the maximum age. After that the respondents authorities prepared a fresh list in which the recovery of the petitioner has been shown to be less, therefore, he has not been selected. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was already selected and placed in the select list prepared in the year 2009 and the delay, if any, for granting relaxation was on the part of the State State Government and thus, he cannot be penalized for the same as his appointment ought to relate back to the date when the select list was prepared in which his name found place. Prima-facie there appears to be force in the submission and the matter requires scrutiny. Learned Standing Counsel representing the State respondents may file counter affidavit within six weeks. Petitioner will have three weeks thereafter for filing rejoinder affidavit. List after expiry of the aforesaid period. Considering the facts, one post of regular collection amin shall be kept reserved for the petitioner." In this case counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the proposal for relaxation in age was sent to the State Government vide letter dated 24.9.2011. The age relaxation was given by the State Government vide order dated 30.9.2011. The aforesaid order clearly indicates that a direction was given to complete the selection proceedings. Drawing attention to Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which is the eligibility list, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the percentage of recovery as shown in his case was 79.75% and this was also considered while granting relaxation in age. He further submitted that in such view of the matter the percentage of recovery in subsequent years could not have been taken into account by the respondent authority while considering the case of the petitioner for promotion under 35% quota. It appears that the eligibility list (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) was prepared on 4.3.2009, the proposal for relaxation in age was sent vide letter dated 24.9.2011 which was granted on 30.9.2011. In such view of the matter, the letter dated 24.9.2011 sent to the State Government assumes importance and the fact as to whether before sending the proposal for relaxation in age selection proceedings have been completed or not by the State Authority in pursuance to the eligibility list dated 4.3.2009. In such view of the matter, learned Standing Counsel is granted three weeks time to place the letter dated 24.9.2011 sent to the State Government on record as noticed in the order dated 30.9.2011. He will also clarify as to whether before sending the letter dated 24.9.2011 any exercise of selection in the present case was undertaken by the State Authorities or not. List immediately after three weeks."
(3.) In pursuance of the above order, a supplementary counter affidavit has been filed by learned Standing Counsel annexing therewith a copy of the order dated 24th September, 2011.;