- (1.) This intra court appeal is directed against order dated 17.2.14 of the learned Single Judge of this court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent seeking directions to the appellants herein to consider his candidature for appointment to the post of Technical Helper while granting relaxation in maximum age limit on the strength of the experience certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer, Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited ('AVVNL'), Shahpura, for the period he rendered services in the appellant company, has been allowed.
(2.) The learned Single Judge while relying upon the clause (2) of the advertisement providing for the minimum and maximum age limit and relaxation therein, observed that on the strength of the certificate issued by A.En., AVVNL, certifying that the respondent had worked under a contract with the AVVNL, Shahpura Division, the respondent is entitled for relaxation in maximum age limit and accordingly, while allowing the writ petition, directed the appellants herein to grant relaxation in maximum age prescribed to the respondent for the period during which he performed duties under the contract and also to accord him appointment if stands in merit and otherwise eligible for appointment.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in issuing directions to grant relaxation in maximum age to the respondent. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent had neither undergone the apprenticeship training nor rendered services on relevant technical job in any capacity i.e. daily rated employee/ work charge/contract service in the appellant company and therefore, he was not entitled to relaxation in maximum age as prescribed under clause (2) of the advertisement. Learned counsel submitted that as a matter of fact, the respondent under the memorandum of understanding dated 10.3.10 was engaged an agent of AVVNL for the purpose of revenue collections, bill distribution and meter reading in the area allotted. Learned counsel would submit that it was purely a temporary contract and there was no employer and employee relationship between the appellant-AVVNL and the respondent and therefore, the respondent was not entitled to age relaxation in the maximum age in terms of proviso to clause (2) of the advertisement.;