High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Babaji v. Director Local Bodies & Others - WRIT - A No. 28008 of 2000  RD-AH 3749 (30 September 2005)
Court No. 32
Writ Petition No. 28008 of 2000
Director Local Bodies Government
Of U.P. Lucknow & others. Respondents
Hon. Vikram Nath,
Heard Sri S.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.K. Tewari, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri S.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the Nagar Palika Parishad, Varanasi.
The petitioners were appointed as Sweeper against sanctioned post in the year 1985. However, at the time of entry the proof with record to the age was not furnished, nor was ever demanded by the authorities for 10 years. Subsequently, in the year 1995 the Nagar Palika Parishad vide letter dated 25.09.1995 directed the petitioner to appear before the Chief Medical Officer Varanasi for the purpose of determination of age and health certificate. Pursuant to the aforesaid letter of the Nagar Palika Parishad the petitioners appeared before the Chief Medical Officer Varanasi, who issued only a certificate of fitness and in which it was incidentally mentioned that according to the own statement of the petitioners and by appearance his age is 28 years. No medical examination has been conducted by the Chief Medical Officer to ascertain the age of the petitioner following the various medical parameters applicable for the said purpose.
Subsequently, upon the said certificate coming to the knowledge of the Nagar Palika Parishad, it submitted papers to the State Government to grant relaxation in respect of 27 petitioners as according to the Chief Medical Officer their age was less than 18 years at the time of initial appointment. By calculation if in 1995 the age of the petitioners is assessed to be 28 years, in the year 1985 at the time of initial appointment their age would be 18 years and, therefore, at the time when they were appointed in 1985 their age would be 18 years. There was no necessity to claim any relaxation in age at the time of appointment. The difficulty is that the certificate issued by the Chief Medical Officer does not follow the procedure for ascertaining the age but, it only mentions the age on the statement of the petitioners and also appearance. In the circumstances it would be appropriate that in case the petitioners are again produced before the Medical Board chanced by the CMO, Varanasi, to certain their age following the various medical parameters in that regard and if their age is found to be 18 years in the year 1985, it would be deemed that they have been validly appointed. In the circumstances let the Executive Officer issue necessary directions for producing the petitioners before the Chief Medical Officer, Varanasi who shall constitute a Board to as certain the correct age of the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. In case the report of the Medical Board is that the petitioners age was 18 years at the time initial of appointment in 1985 such of the petitioners would be considered for regularization and other benefits admissible to them which have been given to the other employees appointed along with the petitioners in the year 1985 and with regard to the others who are not found to be of 18 years in the year 1985, it would be open to the petitioners and respondents to take appropriate action in accordance with law regarding relaxation etc.
Wit the above observations the writ petition is disposed off.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.