High CourtsSingle Bench

Rajesh Kumar Dubey vs State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 21 July 2010 · Citation: (2011) 3 AWC 2896

HON’BLE JUDGES
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
C.M.W.P. No. 66450 of 2008
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 339 words

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 and learned standing counsel for the State as well as learned Counsel for the Basic Shiksha Parishad.

2.

The challenge is to the order dated 2nd December, 2008. The writ petition was entertained and the operation of the said order was stayed.

3.

The District Basic Shiksha Adhikari in the impugned order while cancelling the Petitioner''s selection and appointment as Shiksha Mitra has held that two different dates of birth are mentioned in respect of the Petitioner according to the documents supplied by him and, therefore, since the Petitioner has taken advantage by changing his date of birth as such the selection deserves to De cancelled.

4.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the only requirement under the Government order is that a candidate should not be above the age of 30 years as on the first date of July of the year of recruitment in which selection has to be made.

5.

In the instant case, the date of birth as mentioned by the Petitioner is indicated in the records as produced by him.

6.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contends that even if the other date of birth as referred to by the complainant is taken into account, the Petitioner is not disqualified.

7.

The aforesaid argument is correct. The discovery of another date of birth on the basis of any material which does not alter the eligibility of the Petitioner is only an exercise of envy to dislodge the Petitioner. The same has no adverse legal impact which has not been appreciated by the District Magistrate. The order has been passed treating it to be an incident involving a cognizable offence. This is a strange reasoning for non-suiting the Petitioner without considering his explanation.

8.

The impugned order dated 2.12.2008 is, therefore, quashed. The writ petition is allowed with a direction to the Respondents to allow the Petitioner to continue as Shiksha Mitra, if he is not disqualified otherwise.