- (1.) Appellant Balwinder Singh has preferred this intra court appeal, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.4044/2010 dated 11.05.2010, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ of the appellant.
(2.) The facts giving rise to this intra court appeal are that the appellant Balwinder Singh possesses driving licence to drive light motor vehicle and heavy goods vehicle and he qualified Conductor Licence Certificate dated 12.06.1997 held by the District Transport Officer, Sriganganagar and as such he possesses all the qualifications required for being appointed on the post of Conductor in the respondent Department. The respondent Department invited applications for recruitment to the post of conductor and other posts and the appellant applied for being appointed on the post of Conductor . As per advertisement issued by the respondent Department , the upper age limit for the post of Conductor is 33 years as on 01.01.2010. The appellant was appointed as Booking Agent in the year 1994 and since then no recruitment has been conducted by the Department for 24 years for recruitment to the post of Conductor and the appellant became over age by the time. It is averred that it is the settled law that relaxation should be provided in the upper age limit, for all those years for which no vacancy was advertised. Aggrieved by the advertisement (Anx.4 in the writ petition), to the extent of not granting relaxation in upper age, the appellant filed a writ petition , which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge, vide order dated 11.05.2010. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has preferred this intra court appeal.
(3.) Counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned order dated 11.05.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge, holding that the appellant is not entitled to get benefit of relaxation in upper age limit on the basis of caste, is illegal erroneous and unconstitutional, particularly violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the appellant further contended that as per Regulation of the relevant provisions, the upper age limit for inhouse candidates is prescribed as 40 years and the upper age limit in the case of SC/ST candidates is to be relaxed irrespective of whether the person is an inhouse candidate or a fresh candidate. The learned Single Judge has grossly erred in extending the age relaxation based on caste, only to the fresh/outside candidates, and not allowing this age relaxation to the in house candidates. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the Department has not advertised the vacancy every year . Therefore, the candidates who became overage, they have been denied the right of consideration. In such circumstances the respondents should have granted relaxation in the upper age limit during which vacancies were not advertised.;