@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
S.R. Alam, Chief Justice
1. Heard on the question of admission.
2. Challenge in this writ appeal has been made to the order dated 27.1.2010 passed by learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 7216/2009 by which the writ petition preferred by the Appellant has been dismissed.
3. Facts, leading to filing of the instant writ appeal, briefly stated, are that the Appellant had rendered service in Railway Department as constable in Railway Protection Force for a period of one year and four months i.e. 1.7.2006 to 22.10.2007. The Appellant was also engaged as a teacher in Bharat Ratna Higher Secondary School, Seoni from 1.7:1999 to 30.4.2005. By an advertisement dated 15.9.2007 applications were invited from the eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector in Railway Protection Force. Pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement the Appellant submitted her candidature and participated in the process of selection. She was permitted to appear in the written test and was called for the interview. However, at the relevant time the Appellant was on family way and was asked to report back after the delivery of the child and after being physically fit. The Appellant after being fit for joining the duties approached the Respondents. However, neither she was permitted to join nor any appointment order was issued. The representation submitted by the Appellant was rejected on the ground that the Appellant was overage. The Appellant therefore, filed the writ petition in which a direction was sought to Respondents to appoint her in Railway Protection Force as Sub-Inspector. Learned single Judge vide order dated 27.1.2010 dismissed the writ petition preferred by the Appellant on the ground that the Appellant did not fulfill the criteria with regard to age.
4. Learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently contended that since the Appellant was working in paramilitary force therefore she is entitled to get the benefit of relaxation in age as per Standing Instruction No. 79. It is manifest that Clause 2(b) of the Standing Instruction No. 79 provides that age relaxation in upper age limit is permissible for SC, ST, OBC, Ex-Servicemen and Central Government Employees. Aforesaid clause reads as under:
2(b) Age: Not less than 20 and not more than 25 years as on 1st January of the year in case the vacancies are advertised in the first half of the year or as on 1st July of the year if the vacancies are advertised in the second half of the year. Relaxation in upper age limit will be admissible to SC, ST, OBC, Ex-Servicemen and Central Government Employees as per extant instructions of the Central Government.
5. Aforesaid criteria was further amended to the following effect:
(2) The sentence ''Relaxation in upper age limit will be admissible to SC, ST, OBC, EX-Servicemen and Central Government Employees as per extent instructions of the Central Government'' appearing in para 2(b) may be replaced by:
Relaxation in upper age limit will be admissible as under:
(i) Upto 5 years for SC/ST,
(ii) Upto 3 years for OBC,
(iii) Ex-Servicemen will be allowed to deduct military service from their actual age and such resultant age should not exceed the prescribed age limit by more than three years,
(iv) Upto the maximum of 5 years to candidates who have ordinarily domiciled in the Kashmir Division of the State of J&K during the period from 1.1.1980 to 31.12.1989 (Domicile certificate issued by the competent state authority is necessary for such claim),
(v) Upto the age of 35 years (upto 40 years for SC/ST candidates and 38 years for OBC candidates) in the case of widows, divorced women and women judicially separated from their husbands, who are not remarried,
(vi) Upto 5 years for central government civilian employees(including serving railway employees) who have rendered not less than 3 years continuous service on regular basis as on the closing date.
6. Admittedly, the Appellant is not covered under any of the categories to which benefit of relaxation of age has been extended. In order to avail the benefit of relaxation in age, serving railway employee has to render not less than three years continuous service on regular basis. The Appellant has rendered service in railway department for a period of one year and four months i.e. from 1.7.2006 to 22.10.2007. Therefore, the Appellant does not fulfill the aforesaid criteria. Services rendered by the Appellant in Bharat Ratna Higher Secondary School from 1.7.1999 to 30.4.2005 is of no assistance to the Appellant as the school is neither run nor managed by the Central Government but is being run by a society. The Appellant was admittedly overage and did not fulfill the criteria as prescribed under Clause 2(b) of the Standing Instruction No. 79. She is not covered under any of the categories to which the benefit of relaxation in age has been extended.
7. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The same deserves to and is hereby dismissed.
