Dori Lal Gangwar vs Director, State Education Research and Training Board and Another

Anjani Kumar, J.—Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned standing counsel representing the respondents.

The only point argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that according to the advertisement petitioner, who has put in 17 years of service in the defence services, applied for appointment as B.T.C. teacher has not been granted the relaxation of upper age limit taking into account the service rendered in the defence services, for which he is entitled. He has been granted only three years of age relaxation in upper age limit without further giving him the benefit of the services rendered as are available to Ex-Army personnel. The respondents have given the relaxation only to the extent of three years as are available to disabled ex-Servicemen. Petitioner does not claim relaxation in this category of disabled ex-Servicemen, his claim is conferred only to the tune of services rendered in army as are available to ex-army personnel.

In view of the law and the policy laid down by the defence ministry as relied upon by the respondents, the petitioner is entitled for the relaxation of 17 years of age in the upper age limit. The application of the petitioner for appointment shall not be rejected by the respondents only on the ground that the petitioner is over age unless the petitioner is over age by adding the services rendered by him in the defence services.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. Direction is issued accordingly.