Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/15439/2011 2/ 2 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 15439 of 2011
=========================================
RAJARAM
DHULA UTTARE - Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE
OF GUJARAT & 1 - Respondent(s)
=========================================
Appearance
:
MR BHUSHAN B OZA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR NIRAG PATHAK ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for
Respondent(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1,
MR
PREMAL R JOSHI for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE ANANT S. DAVE
Date
: 21/11/2011
ORAL
ORDER
Heard
learned advocates for the parties.
Mr.
Bhushan Oza, learned advocate for the petitioner relied on Clause 6
pertaining to age relaxation for the employees in the service of
Government of Gujarat on permanent or temporary basis continuously
for a period of six months and in such a case age limit is to be
considered from the first date of the appointment and if such an
appointment is within age limit, case of the candidate is to be
considered pursuant to subject advertisement for the post of Medical
Officer (Allopathy) Class-II as advertised by respondent NO.2. It
is also submitted that the petitioner was called for the interview
and thereafter his name came to be deleted.
Against
the above submissions, Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate for the
GPSC relied on the affidavit-in-reply and submits that after the
above initial appointment on ad hoc basis for 11 months which was on
18.1.2010, a break in service was given and thereafter again on the
same terms and conditions w.e.f. 28.12.2010, the petitioner was given
a fresh appointment.
If
the above factual aspect is considered in the backdrop of proviso of
Rule 8(5) of Gujarat Civil Services Qualification and Recruitment
(General) Rules, 1967, the upper age limit prescribed for purpose of
recruitment in such rules shall not apply to a candidate provided
such candidate had not crossed the age limit prescribed for the
concerned post at the time of his previous appointments and,
therefore, in the last appointment the petitioner was over age and
had crossed 35 years.
The
above proviso needs to be interpreted in light of Clause (6) of the
advertisement which refer to requisite age limit of a candidate at
the time of first appointment. The matter deserves consideration.
Hence,
Rule returnable on 15th December, 2011.
Meanwhile,
by way of ad-interim relief respondent NO.2 is directed to interview
the petitioner for the subject post. However, the result be kept in
sealed cover and action to be taken subject to order that may be
passed by this Court.
Direct
service is permitted.
[ANANT
S. DAVE, J.]
//smita//
Top
