Anurag Sharma v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No.2610 of 2014 Anurag Sharma, aged about 42 years, S/o Late Shri Narmada Prasad Sharma, R/o Jagannath Bhavan, Brahmanpara, Raipur, P.S. Purani Basti, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Presently posted as Sub-Engineer Municipal Council, Bhilai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) ---- Petitioner versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Raipur, Chhattisgarh
2. The Chhattisgarh Public Service Commission, Through its Secretary, Shankar Nagar Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate For State/Respondent No.1 : Shri B. Gopa Kumar, Deputy Advocate General For Respondent No.2 : Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Navin Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board Per Navin Sinha, Chief Justice 18/8/2015 1.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner very fairly acknowledges that the issue for age relaxation in this writ application has become academic in view of the selections in question pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.12.2013 published on 25.12.2013 having been completed. 2.
It is however submitted that the Respondents are obliged to consider any request for age relaxation in any future advertisement that they may publish.
3.
Matters with regard to relaxation of age for appointment in government service are more of policy matters for the employer to decide and it is not for the Court to substitute its views in place of the employer. It would be a hypothetical situation to give any directions in this regard at
this stage in the void. Should the Respondents publish any advertisement in future and the Petitioner is of the opinion that he is entitled to be considered for age relaxation, and if he applies for that purpose, it remains within the domain of the employer to act in accordance with law considering the provisions under which appointments are to be made, the terms of the advertisement, the needs of the employer etc. No mandamus specific on the issue can be granted at this stage. 4.
The writ application stands disposed.
Sd/- Sd/- (Navin Sinha) (P. Sam Koshy) CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE Gopal