- (1.) D. K. Seth, J. The petitioner was ap pointed as Instructor Hindi on 2nd January 1984 in Town Polytechnic at Balia in a clear vacancy for a period of two months and her services were extended from time to time when she remained in service for complete one year. Her appointment was further ex tended and thus she worked for nearly four years. An advertisement was issued on 2-1-1987 by which applications were invited from the eligible candidates for appoint ment on the post of Instructor in Hindi, which is Annexure-2 to the petition, as translated at bar the requisite qualification was given to be B. A. with L. T. , B. T or B. Ed. It was further provided that the candidates having English Literature as an additional subject in graduation or post graduate in Hindi will be given preference. The age was stipulated to be 21 years and 40 years, Pur suant to the said advertisement the petitioner has claimed that she is Ph. D. in Hindi but she does not possess the complete qualification as required in the said adver tisement. A copy of the said application is Annexure-C A-6 to the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 1. The petitioner was not allowed interview on the ground that she did not fulfill requisite qualifications laid down in the advertise ment. It is this action of the respondent No. 1, that has been challenged by means of present writ petition.
(2.) SRI J. P. SRIvastava, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner con tends that the petitioner is highly qualified because she is Ph. D. in Hindi. The qualifica tion asked for being less than the qualifica tion possessed by the petitioner, cannot be denied interview on the ground of absence of qualification. He further contends that the petitioner cannot be denied interview on account of over-age which was admitted ly 44 years because of the reason that she has been working for four years continuously in the said institution. Therefore her entry was at the age of 40 years Over and above the age as fixed between 22 years and 40 years is meant for general candidates. Under the relevant rules for Schedule Caste/scheduled Tribes and departmental can didates a relaxation of five years in age is allowed. But in the present case nothing has been mentioned about the relaxation of age with regard to Schedule Caste/schedule Tribes or the departmental candidates. The petitioner further contends that the said qualification has not been completely printed in the advertisement. The respon dent No. 1 has avoided to do so only to deprive the petitioner from her legitimate claim. Relying on the advertisement pub lished for Firoz Gandhi Polytechnic, kae-Bareili, Annexure-3 to the writ petition, the petitioner contends that their age has been fixed for general candidate between 21 years and 40 years. Whereas five years relaxation is allowed to Schedule Caste/scheduie Tribes and departmental candidates. Ac cording to him there cannot be different standard for different institute and all of which are run under the policy framed by the Directorate. According to him the grounds taken in the counter-affidavit that the Directorate had fixed the age at 40 years maximum cannot be accepted because of the reasons that the same is discriminatory and is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Inasmuch as the Directorate cannot discriminate in between two Polytechnics by fixing the age for Schedule Caste/schedule Tribes and departmental candidates alongwith those of general can didates for one Polytechnic while allowing relaxation for those group of candidates in another. Polytechnic. All the Polytechnics are under effective control of the Direc torate, Therefore the Directorate, accord ing to him, cannot fix different standard for the same purpose. On these grounds he claimed that this writ petition should be allowed and the petitioner be allowed to be considered for the purposes of appoint ment. Sri Anoop Kumar Snvastava learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, on the other hand contends that the petitioner according to her own admission does not possess requisite qualification. Therefore she has no claim and the writ petition be dismissed in limine. Over and above the Directorate having fixed the age between 21 years and 40 years the Committee of Management cannot over look the same nor can ignore the same since the committee was directed by means of letter dated 12-12- 1986, Annexure-CA-4 to the counter affidavit whereby age has been specifically fixed. Therefore it was not open to the respondent No. 1 to alter the same. Sri Anoop Kumar Srivastava learned coun sel for the respondent further contends that despite various situations the petitioner was allowed provisional interview as has been stated in para 32 of the counter affidavit. It is stated in para 22 of the counter affidavit that the petitioner informed the respondent No. 1 that she will obtain relaxation with regard to her age and basic qualification but noth ing more has been stated in the said counter affidavit. Sri AK. Srivastava, learned coun sel for the respondent further contends that because the petitioner did not possess basic qualification as stipulated nsmely, that she was L. T B. T. or B. Ed and that she has never claimed that she had Hindi in her B. A, Therefore she cannot claim any right unless relaxation is given in her case as she had herself admitted. Sri J. P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner points out from para 28 of the rejoinder affidavit that the petitioner had admitted to have been given any provisional interview, therefore, he had never faced interview before the Selection Committee.
(3.) WHETHER the petitioner was allowed provisional interview or not cannot be decided on the basis of statement made in the counter-affidavit and denial in the rejoinder affidavit. No copy of the said provisional interview letter is forth-coming. This is a question of fact which cannot be gone into by this Court. So far as the question of age is con cerned it is apparent from Annexure-CA-4 to the counter affidavit that age was men tioned as between 21 years and 40 years but nothing has been mentioned about relaxa tion in the case of Schedule Caste/scnedule Tribes or departmental candidates. There fore fixation of age as appearing in Annexure-CA-4 to the counter-affidavit ap pears to be incomplete, particularly in view of requirement of age specified in the other advertisement for Firoz Gandhi Polytechnic Rae-Bareli, Annexure-3 to the petition, where five years relaxation has been allowed to Schedule Caste/schedule Tribes and departmental candidates. Both the adver tisements were issued in the same year. Ad mittedly both the Polytechnics are governed by 'prayodyogic Shiksha Adhiniyam, 1962. Therefore the Directorate cannot fix dif ferent standard of age for different polytechnic. By reason of the provisions provided for Schedule Caste/schedule Tribes or departmental candidates relaxa tion is available in all the cases of recruit ment relating to age for the persons hailing from such group. Similarly, departmental candidates are also granted some relaxa tion. Admittedly, the petitioner had been serving for almost four years against the clear vacancy which fact has not been dis puted. Therefore she may be treated as departmental candidate eligible for relaxa tion with regard to her age. She is working for four years and her age was 44 years there fore she might be of 40 years at the time of entry though as ad hoc. But it would not be necessary to decide the said question whether she is a departmental candidate and is eligible for relaxation.;