Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9554 of 2021 Petitioner :- Dr. Badri Narayan Gupra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vidhya Shanker Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hemendra Kumar Mishra
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Hemendra Kumar Mishra appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 and Shri Rajendra Prasad Dubey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. This Court vide order dated 16.9.2021 had granted two weeks and no more time to file counter affidavit. Despite time granted, no counter affidavit has been filed by either of the respondents, as such the matter is being decided without waiting for the counter affidavit. Even otherwise, no counter affidavit is required in view of the clear pleadings in the writ petition with regard to the eligibility for consideration for appointment.
3. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 1 retired as a Medical Officer on 30th November, 2014 and petitioner no. 2 retired on 31st January, 2013. It is contended that on 7.6.2021, an advertisement was issued for selection of Specialist/Medical Officer (M.B.B.S.) on contractual basis through walk-in-interview under the National Health Mission, U.P. The advertisement is on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, which indicates that on the date of advertisement the age of the applicant should not be more than 70 years. The petitioners claim that they were called for interview, which they did appear and were selected by the District Health Society/Selection Committee.
4. It is contended that the respondent no. 2 sent a letter dated 9.7.2021 seeking approval of the appointment of the petitioners in terms of the interview faced by them (Annexure-2 to the writ petition). The said approval has been rejected by means of the impugned order dated 9.7.2021 only on the ground that the petitioners are overage and have attained the maximum age limit of 65 years at the time of advertisement.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that the said rejection of the approval is ex facie contrary to the advertisement, which prescribes the age limit of 70 years on the date of advertisement for applying for appointment and rejection thereof solely on the ground that the petitioners are overage and have attained maximum age of 65 years at the time of advertisement is ex facie wrong and arbitrary. Counsel for the petitioners also argues that in terms of a similar advertisement issued in the year 2018, inviting applications from the persons, who were not above 70 years of age and in terms of the said advertisement, the petitioner no. 2 was interviewed and was selected and was also appointed on 2.11.2018 without there being any objection with regard to his age, as admitted, then the petitioner no. 2 was less than 70 years of age.
6. The submission is that petitioner no. 1 is aged 67 years and the petitioner no. 2 is aged 68 years and thus they should be considered for appointment in terms of the advertisement issued.
7. A perusal of the impugned order makes it clear that the same is ex facie contrary to the terms and conditions of the advertisement, as such the approval order dated 9.7.2021 rejecting the approval of the appointment of the petitioners herein only is set aside with directions to the respondent no. 2 to pass fresh orders considering the approval of the appointment of the petitioners in terms of the recommendation dated 9.7.2021 and in the light of the conditions specified in the advertisement. The said exercise shall be completed by the respondent no. 2 within a period of three weeks from the date of filing of a copy of the order.
8. It is clarified that the approval shall not be rejected on the ground that the petitioners are above 65 years of age.
9. The petition stands allowed in terms of the said order.
10. Copy of the order downloaded from the official website of this Court shall be treated as certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 29.9.2021 S. Rahman