Debasish Kar Gupta, J.:— None appears on behalf of the respondent Municipality in spite of service of copy of the writ petition upon the Municipality. No accommodation is prayed for.
2. Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept on record.
3. This writ petition is filed by the petitioners for a declaration upon the respondent Municipality to allow them to participate in the selection of candidates for appointment to different Group “C” and Group “D” posts.
4. Having heard the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respective parties, who are present before this Court today as also after considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that all the petitioners have been engaged to discharge the function of casual workers under the respondent Municipality on payment of consolidated monthly wages of Rs. 900/-.
5. Subsequently, a notice of vacancy was issued by the respondent Municipality under Memo No. EMP/1M/2017/01 dated April 26, 2017 (at page 22 to this writ petition) inviting applications from the eligible candidates to participate in the selection process for appointment in different posts under Group “C” and Group “D” categories.
6. The petitioners submitted their representations to allow them to participate in the above selection process by filing their applications in prescribed proforma but their prayers were rejected with the endorsement on their representations (at pages 26 to 40 of the writ petition) as under:
“Your prayer for allowing in interview is rejected as you have already been crossed the age limit”.
7. This issue has already been settled by a larger Bench of this Court in the matter of Gobinda Chandra Mondal v. The Principal, Rabindra Mahavidyalaya reported in 2013 (1) CHN 9 and the relevant portions of the above decision is quoted below:
“22. It appears that the Division Bench held that even relaxation of the age in case of recruitment is not permissible under any circumstances unless there is express power to that effect.
23. It seems to us the said decision was rendered without noting carefully the ratio of Uma Devi's case and further aforesaid two Supreme Court's decisions (which have stated the ratio) in case of M.L Keshri and Satya Prakash whereby the ratio of Uma Devi's case as recorded above have been clearly culled out. Therefore the said reported Division Bench judgment and unreported Division Bench judgment are not appropriate or helpful to this case. It appears that Division Bench has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited reported in (2008) 2 SCC 717 that at the time of recruitment process the age of the fresh candidate cannot be relaxed but the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court has nowhere said that the persons who are engaged irregularly their case could be considered by relaxing age bar. In view of the above discussion we conclude as follows:
24. No ad hoc or temporary appointee can be absorbed nor be regularized in any post in Government or Government-aided establishment dehors Recruitment or Service Rule ordinarily.
25. If the appointment is made without undertaking selection procedure under Rule on ad hoc or temporary basis engaging the candidates having requisite qualification namely age and education at the time of appointment against substantive post the candidates in those cases shall be allowed to compete and/or participate in the selection process along with other eligible candidates at the time of regular recruitment process condoning the age as they have acquired right to be considered. Of course, their services must be continuous and without any break in the vacancy of substantive post at the time when the regularization is demanded and selection process undertaken. But in case where the appointees are not qualified at all and they have been engaged for rendering services as an ad hoc basis or temporary measure their case cannot be considered under any circumstances either against substantive post or the post yet to be created.
Now all these matters will be sent down to the learned Trial Judge for disposal.”
8. In view of the above settled principles, the petitioners are entitled to participate in the selection process under reference after due condonation of the age bar provided they are otherwise eligible for participating in the above selection process.
9. I direct the respondent Municipality to allow the petitioners to submit their respective applications before the respondent Municipality in prescribed proforma within a period of fortnight from the date of communication of this order as also to allow them to participate in the selection process after condoning the age bar provided they are otherwise eligible to participate in the above selection process.
10. It is further made clear that in the event any of the petitioner is not otherwise eligible to participate in the above selection process, the respondent Municipality shall communicate the reasons therefor to the petitioner concerned within the period mentioned hereinabove.
11. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of.
12. There will be, however, no order as to costs.
13. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.