Arvind Niranjan vs The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others

Shri Justice N.K. Mody

Being aggrieved by the order dated 14/12/2009 passed in W.P.No. 5496/2007(S) by the learned Writ Court whereby the petition filed by the appellant/petitioner was dismissed, the present appeal has been filed. Short facts of the case are that an advertisement was published by the respondents No. 3 and 4 for the post of Panchayat Karmi on 08.11.2007 wherein there was a condition to the effect that cutoff date for the post in question was fixed as 18 years as on 01.01.2007. The appellant who was admittedly not of 18 years on the cutoff date applied for the post but his candidature was rejected as disqualified, therefore, the validity of the advertisement was challenged on the ground that no cutoff date can be fixed contrary to the policy of the State Government regarding appointment of Panchayat Karmi. The writ petition was dismissed, hence this appeal.

Learned counsel argued at length and submits that the date of birth of the appellant is 10/10/1989, thus; the appellant is 18 years on 10/10/2007. It is submitted that on the date of advertisement, the appellant was eligible for the post of Panchayat Karmi but because of the cutoff date fixed as 01/01/2007 in the advertisement, the candidature of the appellant was rejected as disqualified. Learned counsel submits that the act of the respondents No. 3 and 4 is against the policy which is on record as Annexure P/8. It is submitted that as per the Scheme for appointment of Panchayat Karmi, a candidate must be 18 years of age. It is submitted that since the appellant was 18 years of age on the date when the advertisement was published, the candidature of the appellant shall not be disqualified on the ground that he is not eligible. It is submitted that the law laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court has been wrongly applied by the learned Writ Court. It is submitted that even otherwise also, the advertisement published was bad in law because as per the scheme 07 days time was required to be given for inviting the applications but the respondents No. 3 and 4 gave only 04 days for inviting the applications. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances, the appeal filed by the appellant be allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Writ Court be quashed and the appointment of respondent No. 5 and rejection of the candidature of the appellant as disqualified be also quashed.

Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned order and submits that no illegality has been committed by the learned Writ Court in dismissing the writ petition.

From a perusal of the record, it appears that on the date of publication of the advertisement, the appellant was 18 years of age but as per cutoff date mentioned in the advertisement, the appellant was not 18 years of age.

In the matter of Jasbir Rani and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another, , wherein the cutoff date regarding appointment of Panchayat Secretaries was fixed and the validity of the same was challenged on the ground that the same is not in accordance with Rule 5 of the Punjab Panchayat Secretaries (Recruitment and Conditions of Services) Rules, 1979, the Hon''ble Apex Court held that the State Government cannot be faulted for fixation of cutoff date in the advertisement.

This Court is of the view that by fixing the cutoff date in the advertisement for the post in question, no illegality has been committed by the respondents No. 3 and 4. No illegality has been committed by the learned Writ Court in dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. Resultantly, the appeal has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.