Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16214 of 2018
Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar,Shiv Nath Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh
Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
Heard Sri Shiv Nath Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nishit Yadav for respondent no. 2.
The petitioner in the writ petition is seeking a direction to the respondent- Commission to grant him 5 years age relaxation as an OBC candidate and further 5 years as a teacher (Assistant Lecturer) under the U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad and thereafter allow him to appear in the Combined State/Upper Subordinate Service (P.C.S.) Examination 2018.
The Combined State/Upper Subordinate Service (P.C.S.) Examination 2018 was notified on 6 July, 2018 and para 11 of the advertisement prescribes the maximum age limit as not more than 40 years as on 1 July, 2018. A relaxation of five years has been granted to the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and skilled sportsmen of the classified sports categories in Uttar Pradesh, employees of State of Uttar Pradesh, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad - teaching/non-teaching staff, and employees working in secondary schools receiving grants-in-aid from the State Government.
The contention of the petitioner is that he should be given 5 years additional relaxation in age as a government employee as he belongs to Other Backward Classes. Reference has been made to the G.O. dated 19.6.2015, copy of which has been filed as annexure-4 to the writ petition, which provides for age relaxation of maximum 5 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva Ayog has also provided age relaxation of 5 years to an OBC candidate and another 5 years age relaxation as a government employee.
The G.O. dated 19.6.2015 does not, in our opinion, create an additional age relaxation of further 5 years over and above the relaxation already contemplated in the advertisement. The petitioner is 46 years of age as per the affidavit filed along with the writ petition and, as such, he was not entitled for age relaxation of 5 years as a candidate belonging to the OBC category. Further, he cannot claim an additional relaxation of 5 years as a teacher in the private school receiving aid from the State Government. The relaxation contemplated in the advertisement do not run contiguously but are applicable concurrently and a person who already enjoys a statutory relaxation of 5 years in the category of OBC cannot claim an additional age relaxation in another capacity. Besides, relaxation in age granted in one State, as claimed by the petitioner, cannot be claimed in the State of Uttar Pradesh if there is no Rule or Notification or Government Order to that effect.
The Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana & others vs. Piara Singh & others, reported in (1992) 4 SCC 118 has held in para 31 as under :
"31.We may now consider whether the High Court was justified in holding that inasmuch as Haryana and Punjab are sister States and because prior to 1966 Haryana was a part of Punjab, the rule relating to length of service requisite for regularization should be uniform in both the states. We see absolutely no basis for the said holding. They are two different States having their own Governments, merely because one Government chooses to say that one year's temporary or ad hoc service is enough for regularization it cannot be said that the other state must also prescribe the very same period or that it cannot prescribe a longer or shorter period. The fact that there is a single High Court for both the States and the Union Territory of Chandigarh is no ground for saying that the orders issued by them should be uniform."
In another case of State of H.P. vs. P.D. Attri & others, reported in (1999) 3 SCC 217, the Supreme Court has held in para 5 as under :
"5. The case of the respondents is not based on any constitutional or any other legal provisions when they claim parity with the posts similarly designated in the Punjab and Haryana High Court and their pay scales from the same date. They do not allege any violation of any constitutional provision or any other provision of law. They say it is so because of "accepted policy and common practice" which, according to them, are undisputed. We do not think we can import such vague principles while interpreting the provisions of law. India is a union of States. Each State has its own individualistic way of governance under the Constitution. One State is not bound to follow the rules and regulations applicable to the employees of the other State or if it had adopted the same rules and regulations, it is not bound to follow every change brought in the rules and regulations in the other State. The question then arises before us is whether the State of Himachal Pradesh has to follow every change brought in the States of Punjab and Haryana in regard to the rules and regulations applicable to the employees in the States of Punjab and Haryana. The answer has to be in the negative. No argument is needed for that as anyone having basic knowledge of the Constitution would not argue otherwise. True, the State as per "policy and practice" has been adopting the same pay scales for the employees of the High Court as sanctioned from time to time for the employees of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and it may even now follow to grant pay scales but is certainly not bound to follow. No law commands it to do so."
In this view of the matter, rules followed in one State cannot be insisted upon to be followed in another.
The writ petition is misconceived, lacks merits and accordingly stands dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.7.2018 nd