Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The order dated 14.1.2016 is referred to herein below as it contains the gist of the grievances of the petitioners: - - "Counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the impugned advertisement at Annexure -8, submits that the petitioners, who have got the benefit of an order of relaxation of age as per Annexure -5 dated 10.03.2008 passed by the Home Secretary, Jharkhand pursuant to an order passed in WPS No. 433/2007 (Benjamin Hembram & others v/s. The State of Jharkhand & others), would be denied eligibility as being age barred in the instant impugned recruitment exercise to the post of Warden. Petitioners have continued for more than thirty years since their original engagement on Muster Roll basis since 1985 -86. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that under Regularization Rules framed on 13.02.2015, petitioners would otherwise also have a chance for regularization, if all the vacancies are not filled up in the instant recruitment exercise. 2. Counsel for the State prays for short indulgence to obtain instruction in the matter and file their response. 3. Accordingly, list the case on 21.01.2016".
(3.) After few adjournments counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent - State sworn by the respondent No. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent - State submits that petitioners cannot claim age relaxation and weightage over other eligible candidates as the recruitment exercise is being conducted under the provisions of Jharkhand Warden Cadre(Appointment, Promotion and Service Conditions) Rule 2013, which prescribes the minimum eligibility criteria including that of upper age limit. The details of individual petitioners are furnished at Para 6 of the counter affidavit. He further submits that petitioners are also not entitled for regularization in view of the Jharkhand Service Regularization Rules, 2015. This contention of the respondent -State that petitioners cannot claim regularization is not substantiated by the averments made in the counter affidavit or through the submission made by learned counsel for the State. It is further submitted that petitioner No. 4 to 6 are getting the benefit of compulsory deductions of GPF, GIC and monthly payment and are availing staff quarter though there are break in their service prior to 1992.;