- (1.) Heard Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.S.Kushwaha,learned counsel for the respondent no.5 and Sri Mata Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 to 4. The petitioners, who are 13 in number, are seeking quashing of the order dated 17.6.2015. Both the learned counsel for the parties state that the controversy in this writ petition has come up before this Court in Writ Petition No.61619 of 2015, Bhairav Nath Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others in which also the aforesaid order dated 17.6.2015 was quashed and the matter was remitted to the respondent no.1, Secretary, Vocational Education & Sill Development, U.P., Lucknow to reexamine the matter and pass fresh order.
(2.) The order dated 26.11.2015 reads as under:- "Short counter affidavit filed today by Sri K.S. Kushwaha on behalf of respondent no.4 is taken on record. Heard Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mata Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 and Sri K.S. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. Petitioners are seeking quashing of the order dated 17.06.2015 whereby their claim for grant of relaxation in the age limit to enable them to appear in the selection for the post of Instructor in the Industrial Training Institute has been rejected. Certain facts which are not disputed between the parties may be related briefly. The petitioners are stated to be working as Guest Speaker in the Industrial Training Institute for a period of one year under the Guest Speaker scheme. The scheme came to end but the petitioner continued to work under certain Government Orders as well as interim orders of the Court. Thereafter, the advertisement dated 07.11.2014 and 24.08.2015 were issued by the respondent no.4 for filling up the post of Instructor on a regular basis. According to the petitioners, they cannot apply against the said advertisement because they have now become over age. Reference has been made to the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Training Institute (Instructor) Service Rules, 2014. Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules provides that the candidates for the recruitment on the post of Instructor must have attained the age of 21 years and must not have attained the age of more than 40 years on the first day of July in the calendar year in which the vacancies for recruitment are advertised. Rule 8 reads as under:- "8. A candidate for recruitment to the post of Instructor in the service must have attained the age of 21 years and must not have attained the age of more than 40 years on the first day of July of the calendar year in which the vacancies for recruitment are advertised provided that the upper age limit in the case of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and such other categories as may be notified by the Government from time to time shall be greater by such number of years as may be specified." The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a relaxation in the upper age limit is provided to the members belonging to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and such other categories as may be notified by the Government from time to time. Earlier the petitioners had filed writ petition no.13371 of 2015 (Bhairav Nath Singh and 10 others Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others) which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 19.03.2015 with a direction to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioners. The impugned order has been passed in pursuance of the aforesaid directions. Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the entire body of the impugned order, the provisions of Rule 8 have not been discussed at all particularly that part of the Rule which provides for relaxation to "such other categories as may be notified by the Government from time to time." He submits that these words would apply to the petitioners and the petitioners would fall within the 'other categories'. Sri Mata Prasad as well as Sri K.S. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submit that the rules contemplating relaxation of upper age limit is for Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and other categories as may be notified by the Government. Both the learned counsel submit that the 'other categories' must be read in the context of the word used earlier i.e. the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, meaning thereby that the categories which may be considered under the 'other categories' would be the reserved categories which may be vertical reservation or horizontal reservation as may be notified by the Government at any future date and it certainly does not apply to Guest Speakers. In any case it does not apply to Guest Speakers who have been employed on contract basis for a period of one year. They further submit that the mere fact that the petitioners were allowed to work beyond the period of contract under the interim order of the Court or under subsequent Government Orders does not place them under the category contemplated under 'other categories' in the proviso to Rule 8 and therefore, no relaxation in the upper age limit can be granted to the petitioners. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The impugned order dated 17.06.2015 is completely silent so far as interpretation of Rule 8 particularly its proviso is concerned. There is no reference to the proviso or to the 'other categories' nor any discussion as to whether the petitioners who are contract Guest Speakers would fall within the meaning of the term 'other categories'. In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated 17.06.2015 cannot survive and is accordingly, quashed. The writ petition is allowed and the matter is remitted to respondent no.1-Secretary, Vocational Education & Skill Development Department, U.P. to re-examine the matter and pass fresh orders in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in his office. "
(3.) In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 17.6.2015 impugned in the present writ petition is also quashed in the light of the observation made in order dated 26.11.2015 passed in the Writ Petition no.61619 of 2015 which shall also be applicable in the present writ petition. The writ petition stands allowed.;