State of Uttarakhand and Others vs Balak Ram

V.K. Bist, J.—Having heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants, the Court is of the opinion that the order of the learned Single Judge dated 7th March, 2006 does not require any interference. The learned Single Judge observed that the writ Petitioner was working in the institution for a considerable period of time even though there was some break in service but, nonetheless, applied for an appointment on a Class-IV post when it was advertised by the institution but the same has been rejected on the ground that he was overage. The learned Single Judge directed the Respondent to consider the grant of relaxation in the upper age limit. The Respondent, being aggrieved, has filed the present writ petition.

Rule 28 of the Group "D" Employees Service Rules, 2004 reads as under:

Relaxation from conditions of service - Where the State Government is satisfied that the operation of any rule regulating the conditions of Service of persons appointed to the Establishment causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may, notwithstanding anything contained in the rules applicable to the case, by order, dispense with or relax the requirements of that rule to such extent and subject to such conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner.

A perusal of the aforesaid Rules indicates that a power has been given to the State Govt. to relax any rule regulating the condition of service.

In the light of the aforesaid Rules, the Court is of the opinion that a mandamus was rightly issued to the Respondent to consider the case of the Petitioner with regard to the relaxation of the upper age limit. The Court does not find any reason to interfere with such direction given by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is dismissed.