(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI) 1. We have heard Mr Gaurav R Chudasama, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr G.M. Joshi, learned standing counsel for respondent No.1 and Mr Rakesh R. Patel, learned AGP for respondent No.2. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 13.4.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 3480 of 2012.
2. The facts of the case in brief are as under:
The appellants are working on the establishment of Civil Court, Porbandar on ad hoc and temporary basis and on fixed remuneration basis as Assistant (Junior Clerk) since 28.11.2006. In response to an advertisement issued by respondent No.1 inviting on-line applications for recruitment on different posts, the appellants applied for the post of Assistant (Junior Clerk) as they possessed the required qualification. It is their case that when they tried to submit their on-line applications, they were required to insert their date of birth in the relevant column. When they filled the date of birth, their applications were not accepted on the ground that they are not within the age limit prescribed in the advertisement inclusive of the relaxation. Being aggrieved by the non-acceptance of their applications, they have preferred writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 3480 of 2012. The learned Single Judge, on overall consideration of the facts and the material on record, has not entertained the petition holding that the petitioners do not fall within the age limit applicable even after the relaxation provided for inasmuch as the age limit after special relaxation of 5 years would be 30 years and the age of all petitioners is above the said upper age limit of 30 years. The learned Single Judge also observed that the petitioners have approached the court at very belated stage, inasmuch as the advertisement was published on 15/16.2.2012 and the submission of on-line application commenced from 21.2.2012 whereas the petition was filed on or around 16.3.2012. Hence the present appeal.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has urged that the appellants are working in subordinate courts for more than 5 years but they have not been granted any age relaxation for the services they have rendered in the subordinate courts though in other advertisements namely, for appointments of Translators and English Stenographer (Grade-II) (Non-Gazetted Class-III), benefit of age relaxation has been provided for those employees who have been working in the subordinate courts upto 5 years. There is similar provision in clause (1)sub-rule (5-A) of Rule 8 of Gujarat Civil Services (Classification and Recruitment), 1967 which has been given effect to. Mr G.M. Joshi appearing for respondent No.1 submitted that though the Rules of 1967 are not applicable in the present case, relaxation in upper age limit is already granted and the details of the relaxation are clearly mentioned in the advertisement. He submitted that in view of the conditions mentioned in the advertisement and other applicable criteria, the provisions on which the appellants have placed reliance are not applicable and the same will not help the appellants. Mr Joshi submitted that there is no error in non-acceptance of the on-line applications of the appellants since they do not fulfil the parameters related to the prescribed upper age limit (including relaxation) and that therefore, the relief prayed for by the appellants does not deserve to be granted.
4. The learned Single Judge in para 14.10 of the impugned judgment observed as under:
“14.10. In this context, if the advertisement is examined, then it emerges, as recorded hereinabove, that any experience is not prescribed for the post in question. Under the circumstances, it is difficult to accept the petitioners contention that since they are in service though on purely ad hoc basis and on consolidated salary basis and although their appointments are made irregularly, their case should be treated as covered under sub-rule (5) of Rule 8 and the provision regarding upper age limit should not be made applicable in their case.”
5. We have carefully gone through the appeal. The appeal was not filed on the basis of other advertisement nor it has been claimed that the selection process is illegal as age relaxation has not been granted to employees of subordinate courts. The only relief claimed by the appellants is that the appellants' on-line application forms be accepted and they may be permitted to appear in the examination. Gujarat High Court has granted age relaxation of 5 years to all candidates as urged by Mr G.M. Joshi, learned Standing Counsel, in view of the fact that for a long period, examination could not be held and this will also include employees working in subordinate courts. The eligibility criteria mentioned in the Advertisement No. RC/B/1304/2011 reads as under:
“2. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:
(A) .... ....
(B) Age limit:
(a) ... ....
(b) ... ....
(c) Employees working in the subordinate Courts or any other High Court be allowed on a uniform basis relaxation of a maximum period of 5 years or to the extent of equal number of years for which service has been put in by him/her, whichever is less, in the upper age limit.”
6. In view of the aforesaid clear eligibility criteria and since there is neither any challenge to the validity of age relaxation nor any relief has been claimed in this regard, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
7. This appeal is devoid of any merit and it is accordingly dismissed along with Civil Application. Notice is discharged.
[V.M. SAHAI, J.] [G. B. SHAH, J.] msp