Vijay Kumar Tiwari vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors

Ajay Kumar Tripathi, CJ

Writ application was filed by the Appellant when his prayer for grant of age relaxation on ground of sterlisation/family planning in matter of

appointment on the post of Sub Engineer (Civil) in the Department of Rural Engineering Services, was rejected by the Respondent authorities on

14.03.2014, Annexure P/1 to the writ application. The said decision was challenged before the learned Single Judge, who in the totality of the

circumstances, did not find any merit in the writ, and therefore, dismissed the same.

The Court is not required to go into the factual details. There was an advertisement where the maximum age for recruitment was specified. The

Appellant was over age, but in terms of the policy of the State Government, he demanded and was looking forward to relaxation of age by two years

since his wife had undergone sterlisation.

The main limb of argument on behalf of the Appellant before the learned Single Judge was that in similar circumstances, many a writ applications

came to be allowed and benefit of extended age accrued to their advantage and therefore, there should be parity even in his case.

The learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that even with the concession of two years, he was more than six months over age, and in

addition to that, the Court took a view that since the Appellant was a fence sitter, he did not approach the Court in time and decided to file the writ

application when he discovered that some similar reliefs have been granted to some other persons by the High Court but well after the recruitment

was over.

Irrespective of the above reasons which have been assigned by the learned Single Judge, the fact remains that the advertisement was issued as far

back as 28.04.2012. The recruitment exercise was completed, appointments have been done and since the appoints are not an ongoing exercise or

process, therefore, a person cannot be ordered to be appointed at his convenience or timing.

An argument is made that there are still vacancies subsisting and therefore, there should not be any difficulty in directing the Respondent authorities

to appoint the Appellant on similar ground of relaxation of age. To such submission, this Court has to observe that the left over vacancies, if any, will

be required to be filled up in the next exercise of recruitment and those vacancies cannot be utilized through a judicial order to be filled up when it is

not even the case of the Appellant that he was part of the select list of candidates and was on the wait list panel to be appointed against any subsisting

vacancy.

The order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity.

The appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.