Thaker Jagrutiben Vishnuprasad vs State of Gujarat and Others

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—This Intra-Court Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 25.10.2010 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 10853 of 2010 whereby the Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant.

Heard learned Counsel Mr. v. K. Joshi appearing for the Appellant.

The facts of the case are that though advertisement was issued on 11.11.1998 for the post of Mukhya Sevika, the Appellant was within the age limit, the Respondent authorities did not undertake the recruitment process because of litigation in the form of Special Civil Application No. 7726 of 2009 and when the process of recruitment is undertaken, the Appellant''s case is not considered by saying that the Appellant has crossed the upper-age limit.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant has submitted that in view of Government Circular dated 19.07.2007, the Appellant is entitled for relaxation of age from 45 years to 48 years. Hence, the Appellant is not over-aged when the recruitment process has started and hence, the Respondent authorities may be directed to include the name of the Petitioner in the selection list. Learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on the decisions of this Court in the case of Dakshaben Narandas Patel and Ors. v. Gujarat Panchayat Service Selection Board, 2000 (1) GLH 641 and in the case of Popatbhai Ramjibhai Moghariya and Ors. v. District Judge, Surendranagar and Ors. 1993 (2) GLH 635.

The Respondents, in the affidavit-in-reply filed in the writ petition, has clearly stated that as per Mukhya Sevika Class - 3 (Panchayat Service) Recruitment Rules, 2004, the upper age limit in case of nomination for the post of Mukhya Sevika is fixed as 45 years. It is further stated that by Government Resolution dated 19.07.2007, upper age limit was relaxed by three years only for the first time nomination. It is further stated that on 28.08.2010, when the meeting of the Panchayat Service Selection Committee of Banaskantha District Panchayat took place, the Appellant who was born on 13.05.1961 was 49 years old and since she was over-aged, her case was not considered.

In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that since the Appellant has crossed the upper-age limit, her case was rightly not considered by the Selection Committee for appointing her as Mukhya Sevika. Furthermore, the Learned. Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition of the Appellant on the ground that statutory Rules prescribe upper age limit as 45 years and since the Appellant is over-aged at the time of recruitment process, her case was rightly not considered. Furthermore, the judgments relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Appellant are not applicable to the facts of the present case for the reason that in those cases, the Petitioners were selected and placed in the selection list in the year 1985. Thereafter, the State Government put ban on the recruitment. In the meantime, the Petitioners had become over-aged and were denied appointment. In that view of the matter, this Court held that the Petitioners could not have been denied their right to be appointed only because they had crossed upper-age limit at the time of their turn for actual appointment. However, in the case on hand, before the Appellant is placed in the select list, she crossed upper-age limit and hence, her case could not be considered by the Respondent authorities for selection of Mukhya Sevika. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Learned Single Judge. The appeal is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed.

In view of dismissal of appeal, Civil Application also stands dismissed.