Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vd. Arati Prabhakar Dubewar, filed a writ petition challenging the communication dated 25.6.2009 issued by respondent No.2, the Director of Ayurved, rejecting her proposal for appointment as Reader in the handicapped category on the ground that she was above the prescribed age limit. The petitioner was a qualified candidate and had appeared for an interview. At the time of the advertisement, her age was 45 years 8 months and 2 days, which exceeded the upper age limit of 45 years prescribed for handicapped candidates. The petitioner contended that she was entitled to an additional relaxation of three years, as the State Government had relaxed the upper age limit for reserved categories by three years. She argued that not allowing this additional relaxation would amount to discrimination. The respondents opposed the petition, stating that the age limit for handicapped candidates was already relaxed to 45 years, and no further relaxation was permissible. The court, after hearing the parties, held that the petitioner was not entitled to any further relaxation beyond the prescribed limit of 45 years. The court noted that the Government Resolution did not provide for cumulative relaxation, and the petitioner's age clearly exceeded the upper age limit. The court dismissed the petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's claim of discrimination.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Age Relaxation - Handicapped Category - Upper Age Limit - The petitioner, a handicapped candidate, sought appointment as Reader in an Ayurveda college. The prescribed upper age limit for handicapped candidates was 45 years. The petitioner was aged 45 years 8 months 2 days at the time of advertisement. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to any further relaxation beyond the prescribed limit of 45 years, as the Government Resolution did not provide for cumulative relaxation. (Paras 1-7)
B) Service Law - Discrimination - Age Relaxation - The petitioner argued that denial of additional three years relaxation would amount to discrimination. The court rejected this argument, stating that the petitioner was not similarly situated to other candidates who might have been granted relaxation under different rules. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner, a handicapped candidate, is entitled to additional age relaxation of three years beyond the prescribed upper age limit of 45 years for appointment as Reader in an Ayurveda college.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Age relaxation for handicapped candidates
- Upper age limit for appointment
- No cumulative relaxation beyond prescribed limit
- Interpretation of Government Resolution
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (09) 153
Writ Petition No.4848/2009
S.A. Bobde, A.B. Chaudhari
Mrs. M.P. Munshi for petitioner; Shri J.Y. Ghurde for respondent No.1; Mrs. B.H. Dangre, Addl. G.P. for respondent No.2; Shri R.D. Khade, h/f Mrs. T.D. Khade for respondent No.3; Ms U.R. Tanna, h/f Shri R.S. Sundaram for respondent No.4
Vd. Arati Prabhakar Dubewar
Ayurveda Seva Samiti Sanchalit D.M.M. Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Yavatmal through its Principal; Director of Ayurved, Mumbai; Maharashtra University of Health & Sciences, Nashik; Central Council of Indian Medicines, New Delhi
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging rejection of proposal for appointment as Reader on ground of age exceeding prescribed limit.
Remedy Sought
Direction to authorities to relax age limit by additional three years and appoint petitioner as Reader.
Filing Reason
Petitioner's proposal for appointment as Reader in handicapped category was rejected by Director of Ayurved because her age (45 years 8 months 2 days) exceeded the prescribed upper age limit of 45 years.
Previous Decisions
Communication dated 25.6.2009 from respondent No.2 rejecting the proposal.
Issues
Whether the petitioner is entitled to additional age relaxation of three years beyond the prescribed upper age limit of 45 years for handicapped candidates.
Whether denial of such relaxation amounts to discrimination.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that she is qualified and appeared for interview; her age was 45 years 8 months 2 days; she is entitled to relaxation up to 48 years as State Government relaxed upper age limit for reserved categories by three years; not allowing additional relaxation amounts to discrimination.
Respondents argued that age limit for handicapped candidates is already relaxed to 45 years; no further relaxation is permissible.
Ratio Decidendi
The petitioner, being a handicapped candidate, was entitled to age relaxation up to 45 years as per the rules. Her age at the time of advertisement was 45 years 8 months 2 days, which exceeded the prescribed limit. The Government Resolution did not provide for any further relaxation beyond 45 years for handicapped candidates. Therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to additional relaxation of three years, and the rejection of her proposal was valid.
Judgment Excerpts
By the present petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the communication dated 25.6.2009, issued by respondent No.2 – Director of Ayurved, rejecting the proposal to appoint her in handicapped category she being above the prescribed age limit.
There is no dispute that the petitioner is qualified to hold the post of reader and accordingly she had appeared for the interview. It is true that her age at the time of advertisement was 45 years 08 months and 02 days i.e. above 45 years.
The age limit prescribed by relaxation to the candidates belonging to handicapped category is 45 years.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.4848/2009 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, challenging the communication dated 25.6.2009 from the Director of Ayurved rejecting her proposal for appointment. The petition was heard on 27.07.2010 and judgment pronounced on 21.09.2010.
