D.N.PATEL,J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 1392 of 2017 dated 21st March. 2017 whereby, the writ petition preferred by this appellant was dismissed and the cut-off date which this appellant wanted to be extended was not extended by the learned Single Judge and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner.
(2.) Factual matrix: This appellant is an original petitioner. He preferred an application in pursuance of the public Advertisement No. 21 of 2016 for the post of Graduate Trained Teachers. It appears that as per the respondent government policy there is 25% reservation for those Teachers who are working in the Elementary Schools and having experience of 5 years. For General Category Candidates, the maximum age limit as on 01.01.2016 is 40 years with a 5 years relaxation for those who are working as Teachers in the Elementary Schools. The present appellant is a General Category Candidate. His date of birth is 5th January. 1970. He was working with Elementary School situated at Middle School, Nengtasai, Gamharia, District Seraikelia from 2004 onwards. This appellant (original petitioner) could apply for the post of Teacher in pursuance of public Advertisement No. 21 of 2016 mainly for the reason that he is over-age by approximately one year and he wants extension of the cut-off date or for grant of more age relaxation or for one time lump sum/aenerai extension like one time settlement in the bank. This was the main prayer in the writ petition in W.R(C) No. 1392 of 2017 preferred by this appellant, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 21st March, 2017 and hence, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal.
(3.) Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the Appellant (original petitioner): Counsel appearing for the appellant (original petitioner) submitted that this appellant is already working as Teacher in Elementary School since the year 2004. In pursuance of the public Advertisement No. 21 of 2016 he is unable to apply because as on 01.01.2016 for General Category Candidates the maximum age limit has been prescribed as 40 years with 5 years age relaxation for those candidates, who were already working as a Teacher in the Elementary Schools. Thus, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant (original petitioner) that this appellant is entitled for maximum 45 years age (40 + 5) for preferring an application, but, the date of birth of this appellant is 05.01.1970 and hence, he is over age by one year. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that this appellant is an experienced-hand Teacher. Moreover, such type of extension of the cut-off date or more relaxation in the age has already been granted by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 7526 of 2013 vide judgment and order dated 16th January, 2014. Similar type of extension of cut-off date or more relaxation in the age or one time relaxation in age may be given to this appellant. Counsel appearing for the appellant has also submitted that as the experience of 5 years has been prescribed for those Teachers who are working in an Elementary Schools and therefore, to counter balance his experience 5 years age relaxation has been given, but, looking to the peculiar facts of the present case that since 2011 no examination has ever been conducted by the respondent-State for the post in question, more age relaxation should have been provided or the cut-off date should have been prior to 01.01.2016. It is submitted by the counsel for the Appellant that in the facts of the present case suffice it will be if it is shifted to 01.01.2015 or instead of 5 years age relaxation if it is decided by this Court as 6 years of age relaxation or if this Court is granting lumpsum permission to this appellant to prefer an application looking to his experience as one time age relaxation. These aspects of the matters have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant and hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may kindly be allowed so that this appellant can prefer an application in pursuance of public Advertisement No. 21/2016.;