Rajendra Kumar vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

B.S. Verma, J.—Heard Sri Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel, for the State and Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate for respondent No. 2.

By means of this petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 12-08-2010, passed by respondent No. 2, contained as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition, by which the respondent No. 2 has cancelled the candidature of the petitioner to appear in mains examination on the ground of his being over aged.

Further prayer was also made to issue direction to respondent No. 2 to allow the petitioner to appear in mains examination scheduled to be held on 3-9-2010 and 4-9-2010.

Perusal of record shows that pursuant to advertisement (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition), petitioner appeared in preliminary examination of U.D.A./L.D.A. held by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and he was declared successful in the preliminary examination. But later on his application form was cancelled by respondent No. 2 vide impugned order dated 12-8-2010 on the ground that the petitioner was over age.

I have perused the advertisement. Clause-10 of the advertisement, which stipulates the age conditions, shows that the age of the candidate should be 21 years to 35 years to appear in the examination. He should complete 21 years of age as on 1st July, 2007 and should not complete the age of 35 years, meaning thereby his birth should not be before 2nd July 1972 and after 1st July 1986.

In the advertisement five years age relaxation has been given for Scheduled Caste candidate. The date of birth of the petitioner is 01-07-1967. The deadline of date of birth has been given that the candidate should not be born before 2nd July 1972. The petitioner is a Scheduled Caste candidate and five years relaxation has been given to him, therefore, counting the relaxation of five years the petitioner could be eligible upto the date of birth of 2nd July 1967. As the petitioner was born on 1st July 1967, therefore, he is over age by one day.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the respondent No. 2 has permitted the petitioner to appear in preliminary examination, hence now he cannot stop him to appear in the mains examination and the decision taken by the respondent is barred by the principle of estoppel.

I do not find any force in the above submission. Since the petitioner has appeared in preliminary examination and thereafter the mistake was detected by the respondent No. 2. The bonafide mistake can be rectified at any stage.

The petitioner also did not challenge the advertisement.

In the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case the petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed.

The writ petition is dismissed.