Rajiv Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant.ordern.n. tiwari, j. 1. in this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to allow him to fill up the application form and to appear in the examination for the post of additional public prosecutor (app for short) pursuant to the advertisement no. 3/04-05 to be held by jharkhand public service commission (jpsc for short), ranchi.2. it has been stated that the petitioner has been working as an assistant in the civil court, godda and has applied for appearing in the examination for the post of a.p.p. his application for app was forwarded by the district & sessions judge, godda on 37.5.2005. it has been stated that one of the conditions was that the candidate ought to have completed at least one year practice as an advocate before 31.1.2005 and his upper age limit on 31.5.2005 should not exceed 35 years age. it has been submitted that the petitioner fulfills the other requisites criteria but he has crossed the upper age limit. it has been submitted that since after the creation of the state of jharkhand in 2000. the examination has been held in 2005 and considering the same, the jpsc and the state-respondents have allowed benefit of age relaxation for the other examinations and the petitioner is also entitled for the said benefit.3. a counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of jpsc stating inter alia that the petitioner has crossed the prescribed age limit and that the decision of fixation of upper age limit is not of the commission but the same has been fixed by the state government while only cut-off date has been fixed by the commission. it has been submitted that the commission has got no power of giving any age relaxation and that this matter is related with the state government.4. a counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the state respondent no. 3, secretary, department of law & justice, government of jharkhand but the fact that in earlier cases, relaxation of age has been allowed has not been denied. however, nothing has been stated as to why the age has not been relaxed in the instant case.5. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that exactly in similar situation and for the same examination, some of the petitioners of general category approached this court and this court in subodh kumar jha v. state of jharkhand and ors. wp (s) no. 2628 of 2005, considering that after creation of the new state in 2000, no action has been taken earlier to fill up the post till 2005. the prayer of relaxation of age was allowed and the writ petition was allowed with observations that the order shall be confined to the said writ petition. it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a similarly situated person and there is no reason as to why he should not be equally treated and the same benefit be not given to him. it has been submitted that any discrimination against the petitioner and any different treatment is violative of article 14 of the constitution of india.6. considering the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's application, if submitted within time, giving the benefit of age relaxation, as has been given in the case of subodh kumar jha, (supra), and pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law. if the petitioner fulfills the other eligibility and prescribed criteria and if the petitioner's application is found to be submitted within time, the respondents shall issue the admit card and allow him to appear in the ensuing examination.

Judgment:
ORDER

N.N. Tiwari, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to allow him to fill up the Application Form and to appear in the examination for the post of Additional Public Prosecutor (APP for short) pursuant to the Advertisement No. 3/04-05 to be held by Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC for short), Ranchi.

2. It has been stated that the petitioner has been working as an Assistant in the Civil Court, Godda and has applied for appearing in the examination for the post of A.P.P. His application for APP was forwarded by the District & Sessions Judge, Godda on 37.5.2005. It has been stated that one of the conditions was that the candidate ought to have completed at least one year practice as an Advocate before 31.1.2005 and his upper age limit on 31.5.2005 should not exceed 35 years age. It has been submitted that the petitioner fulfills the other requisites criteria but he has crossed the upper age limit. It has been submitted that since after the creation of the State of Jharkhand in 2000. the examination has been held in 2005 and considering the same, the JPSC and the State-respondents have allowed benefit of age relaxation for the other examinations and the petitioner is also entitled for the said benefit.

3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of JPSC stating inter alia that the petitioner has crossed the prescribed age limit and that the decision of fixation of upper age limit is not of the Commission but the same has been fixed by the State Government while only cut-off date has been fixed by the Commission. It has been submitted that the Commission has got no power of giving any age relaxation and that this matter is related with the State Government.

4. A counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the State respondent No. 3, Secretary, Department of Law & Justice, Government of Jharkhand but the fact that in earlier cases, relaxation of age has been allowed has not been denied. However, nothing has been stated as to why the age has not been relaxed in the instant case.

5. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that exactly in similar situation and for the same examination, some of the petitioners of general category approached this Court and this Court in Subodh Kumar Jha v. State of Jharkhand and Ors. WP (S) No. 2628 of 2005, considering that after creation of the new State in 2000, no action has been taken earlier to fill up the post till 2005. The prayer of relaxation of age was allowed and the writ petition was allowed with observations that the order shall be confined to the said writ petition. It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a similarly situated person and there is no reason as to why he should not be equally treated and the same benefit be not given to him. It has been submitted that any discrimination against the petitioner and any different treatment is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

6. Considering the said submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner's application, if submitted within time, giving the benefit of age relaxation, as has been given in the case of Subodh Kumar Jha, (supra), and pass an appropriate order, in accordance with law. If the petitioner fulfills the other eligibility and prescribed criteria and if the petitioner's application is found to be submitted within time, the respondents shall issue the admit card and allow him to appear in the ensuing examination.