The relief sought for in this writ petition is challenging the order of rejection dated 2.3.2015 and for a direction to the respondent to sponsor the name of the writ petitioner for appointment to the post of Conductor in the State Transport Corporation.
2. On perusal of the order impugned, it is stated that the District Employment Exchange informed that the Conductor License was registered on 8.11.2001. Further, the writ petitioner has completed his 43 years of age and the age limit prescribed for appointment to the post of Conductor in the Transport Corporation is 40 years. Therefore, the District Employment Exchange was unable to sponsor the name of the writ petitioner for recruitment to the post of Conductor in the State Transport Corporation.
3. When the District Employment Exchange has categorically informed the fact that the age limit prescribed, as per the Service Conditions of the State Transport Corporation, for appointment to the post of Conductor is 40 years and the writ petitioner has already crossed 43 years, there is no question of sponsoring the name of the writ petitioner for appointment to the post of Conductor in the State Transport Corporation. Relaxation of age can never be claimed as a matter of right and this Court cannot issue any such direction, granting age relaxation to the writ petitioner, so as to secure appointment in Public Sector undertakings/Corporations or with the Government.
4. In this view of the mater, the grounds raised in this writ petition, cannot be considered by this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
04-09-2017 Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order.