Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mrs. Sanjyot Uday Kudalkar, a government servant, applied for the post of Drug Inspector pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Goa Public Service Commission. She was found eligible in all respects except that she was over-age. However, she claimed age relaxation under a Government Circular dated 30/04/2015, which allowed relaxation of the upper age limit for government servants. The respondents denied her appointment, stating that the circular was not applicable. The court examined the circular and found that it clearly applied to the petitioner. The court also noted that other candidates had been granted similar relaxation. The court held that the denial was arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14. The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's candidature with age relaxation.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Age Relaxation - Government Circular - The petitioner, a government servant, applied for the post of Drug Inspector but was denied appointment on the ground of over-age. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to age relaxation as per the Government Circular dated 30/04/2015, which provided for relaxation of upper age limit for government servants. The denial was arbitrary and discriminatory. (Paras 1-18)
B) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Discrimination - The court held that the denial of age relaxation to the petitioner, while granting it to similarly situated candidates, violated Article 14 of the Constitution. The State cannot pick and choose among eligible candidates. (Paras 12-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, who was over-age for the post of Drug Inspector, was entitled to age relaxation as per the Government Circular dated 30/04/2015, and whether the denial of appointment was arbitrary and discriminatory.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioner's candidature for the post of Drug Inspector with age relaxation as per the Government Circular dated 30/04/2015, and if found suitable, grant her appointment with consequential benefits.
Law Points
- Age relaxation
- Government service
- Appointment
- Writ petition
- Discrimination
- Circular
- Eligibility criteria
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (10) 189
WRIT PETITION NO.94 OF 2022
M. S. SONAK, BHARAT P. DESHPANDE
Mr Chaitanya Padgaonkar with Ms V. Mahato, Advocates for the Petitioner; Mr Deep Shirodkar, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent Nos.1,2 and 3; Mr Dattaprasad Lawande with Mr P. Dangui, Advocates for Respondent No.4
Mrs. Sanjyot Uday Kudalkar
The State of Goa, The Secretary (Health), The Director of Food and Drugs Administration, Goa Public Service Commission
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging denial of appointment on ground of over-age despite eligibility for age relaxation under government circular.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought direction to respondents to consider her candidature for the post of Drug Inspector with age relaxation as per Government Circular dated 30/04/2015.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was denied appointment to the post of Drug Inspector on the ground that she was over-age, despite being a government servant entitled to age relaxation under a government circular.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to age relaxation under the Government Circular dated 30/04/2015?
Whether the denial of appointment is arbitrary and discriminatory?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that she is a government servant and entitled to age relaxation as per the circular.
Respondents argued that the circular was not applicable to the post in question.
Ratio Decidendi
A government servant applying for a post is entitled to age relaxation as per the applicable government circular, and denial of such relaxation without valid reason is arbitrary and violative of Article 14.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner, a government servant, applied for the post of Drug Inspector but was denied appointment on the ground of over-age.
The court held that the petitioner was entitled to age relaxation as per the Government Circular dated 30/04/2015.
The denial was arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the denial of appointment. The court reserved judgment on 3rd October 2023 and pronounced it on 4th October 2023.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 14
