Sandeep Singh vs The Deputy Regional Director

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of the action of the respondent- Authority in rejecting his candidature for the post of Constable (GD) in the Assam Rifles on the ground of being over-age. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present writ petition are that the Staff Selection Commission published a notice in the Employment News/Rozgar Samachar dated 3.12.2011 for recruitment of Constables (GD) and Rifleman (GD) in ITBPF, BSF, CSF, CRPF and Assam Rifles. Matriculation or 10th Class pass was prescribed as the minimum educational qualification. The recruitment process comprised of physical standards test, physical efficiency test, written examination and medical examination. The age limit prescribed was 18-23 years to be reckoned as on 1.8.2012. The closing date for submission of application forms was stipulated as 4.1.2012.

It has been pleaded that the petitioner possessed the essential educational qualification and submitted his application for the post of Constable (GD) in Assam Rifles on 23.12.2011 i.e. within the stipulated time-frame. It has further been pleaded that the petitioner had been permitted to participate in the selection process and, accordingly, he had cleared the physical test in March 2012 and even the written examination on 22.4.2012. The petitioner thereafter was even called for the medical examination vide letter dated 12.6.2012 and his name was even recommended for appointment to the post in question at Serial No. 1477. However, the respondent-Authority has rejected the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Constable (GD) stating him to be over-age. Such order of rejection stands appended as Annexure P5 along with the petition. Apparently, the petitioner served a notice dated 17.1.2013 upon the Deputy Director, Staff Selection Commission, Kendriya Sadan, Sector 9, Chandigarh through counsel. Such legal notice stands responded in terms of communication dated 19.1.2013, Annexure P7, reiterating the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner on the ground of being over-age stating that the petitioner was 23 years, 3 months and 21 days as on the crucial date i.e. 1.8.2012. In the communication dated 19.1.2013, the petitioner has further been informed that there is no age relaxation for the Border District candidates.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argue that the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner is without basis. In this regard, it has been argued that the petitioner had submitted his application for the post of Constable (GD) on 23.12.2011. Learned counsel would refer to Clause 4(A), Note II of the public notice to urge that all the applicants had been notified that it was the date of birth as recorded in the Matriculation/Secondary Examination Certificate or an equivalent Certificate available on the date of submission of applications that will be accepted by the Commission as conclusive proof of age. Learned counsel would argue that as per the Matriculation Certificate issued by the Punjab School Education Board, Annexure P1, upon which the petitioner had placed reliance, his date of birth was recorded as 10.4.1989 and as such, on the date of submission of application form i.e. 23.12.2011, the petitioner was 22 years, 8 months and 24 days. The contention raised is that rejection of the candidature of the petitioner suffers from non-application of mind. Learned counsel has further argued that the petitioner had been permitted to participate in the various stages of selection which he had successfully negotiated and as such, it was not open for the respondent-Commission after having recommended the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Constable (GD) to now turn around and categorize the petitioner as over-age. Learned counsel argues that such action is clearly arbitrary and illegal.

During the course of arguments, this Court apprised the learned counsel that it is only an extract of the public notice issued by the Commission that had been appended and placed on record as Annexure P8. In response, Mr. R.C. Chaudhary, learned counsel made available the complete copy of the notice issued by the Staff Selection Commission published in the Employment News/Rozgar Samachar dated 3.12.2011 for the perusal of this Court.

The stipulation as regards the age limit contained in the public notice was in the following terms:

(A) AGE LIMITS 18-23 years as on 1.8.2012. Candidates should not have been born earlier than 1.8.1989 and not later than 1.8.1994.

Note I: The upper age limit is relaxable for SC, ST, OBC, Ex-Servicemen and other categories of persons in accordance with the Governments orders on the subject.

Note II: Candidates should note that only the Date of Birth as recorded in the Matriculation/Secondary Examination Certificate or an equivalent certificate available on the date of submission of application will be accepted by the Commission for determining the age and no subsequent request for its change will be considered or granted.

A perusal of the relevant clause re-produced hereinabove would make it clear that the age limit prescribed i.e. 18-23 years was to be seen as on 1.8.2012. To remove any ambiguity, it was further clarified that candidates should not have been born earlier than 1.8.1989 and not later than 1.8.1994. In terms of Note II, the date of birth as recorded in the requisite Matriculation/Secondary Examination Certificate available in the hands of the candidate on the date of submission of applications was to be taken as the conclusive proof.

As per the pleaded case of the petitioner himself, his date of birth is 10.4.1989. In the light of the clear stipulation regarding age limit of 18-23 years as on 1.8.2012, the petitioner was over-age being more than 23 years of age. The contention raised by the learned counsel that taking his date of birth to be 10.4.1989, the age of the petitioner is to be reckoned as on the date of submission of the application form, is without merit. The issue as regards the cut-off date as regards acquiring/possessing the eligibility requirement by a candidate seeking public employment is no longer res-integra. It has consistently been held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that the cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility requirement must be satisfied by a candidate seeking public employment is the date stipulated by the relevant service rules and if there be no cut-off date stipulated in the rules, then it would be such date as may be appointed for such purpose in the advertisement calling for the applications. It is only if no such date stands stipulated either in the service rules or in the advertisement, then the last date fixed for receipt of application forms would be taken as the appointed date. Reference in this regard may be made to Mrs. Rekha Chaturvedi (Smt) Vs. University of Rajasthan and Others, ; Dr. M.V. Nair Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , U.P. Public Service Commission U.P., Allahabad and Another Vs. Alpana, and Bhupinderpal Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others,

In the facts of the present case, the public notice had stipulated the crucial date as 1.8.2012 in regard to which the age limit of 18-23 years was to be reckoned. The petitioner having been born earlier than 1.8.1989 was clearly over-age as regards recruitment to the post in question.

As regards the petitioner having been permitted to participate in the various stages of the selection process, it would be useful to advert to instruction No. 2 furnished in the public notice dated 3.12.2011 which was in the following terms:

In view of the anticipated large number of applicants, scrutiny of the eligibility and other aspects will not be undertaken before the PST/PET and Written Examination and, therefore, the candidature will be accepted only provisionally. Candidates are advised to go through the requirements of educational qualification, age, physical standards, etc. and satisfy themselves that they are eligible for the posts, before applying. Copies of supporting documents will be sought only from those candidates who qualify for the medical Examination. When scrutiny is undertaken after the Written Examination, if any claim made in the application is not found substantiated, the candidature will be cancelled and the Commission''s decision in this regard shall be final.

A bare reading of such instructions would make it clear that no indefeasible right came to vest in the petitioner merely on account of having participated in the physical standards test, physical efficiency test as also the written examination. The candidates had been informed at the very outset that on account of the anticipated large number of applications, the scrutiny as regards eligibility and other aspects would be undertaken at the very last and the copies of the supporting documents would be sought only from those candidates who qualified the medical examination. It is strictly in the light of such categoric instruction issued in the public notice mat the petitioner''s candidature had been accepted only on a provisional basis. At the stage of scrutiny, the petitioner has been found over-age. No exception can be taken to such course of action resorted to by the respondent-Commission.

As a last ditch effort, learned counsel would submit that the petitioner has even been denied the benefit of age relaxation inspite of having submitted a certificate as regards belonging to a border District of the State of Punjab. Even such submission is wholly mis-conceived. In the public notice, instruction 4 (B) regulated the age relaxation available to different categories of eligible candidates for claiming age relaxation as on the date of reckoning. Clause 4 (B) is extracted hereunder:

(B) Category-codes and age relaxation available to different category of eligible candidates, for claiming Age Relaxation as on the date of reckoning:

NOTE-I: Ex-servicemen who have already secured employment in civil side under Central Government in Group ''C'' & ''D'' posts on regular basis after availing of the benefits of reservation given to ex-servicemen for their re-employment are NOT eligible for fee concession or for claiming benefits of reservation under EXS category. However, they are eligible for age relaxation.

NOTE-II: The period of "Call up Service" of an Ex- Serviceman in the Armed Forces shall also be treated as service rendered in the Armed Forces for purpose of age relaxation,

NOTE-III: For any serviceman of the three Armed Forces of the Union to be treated as Ex-Serviceman for the purpose of securing the benefits of reservation, he must have already acquired, at the relevant time of submitting his application for the Post/Service, the status of ex-serviceman and/or is in a position to establish his acquired entitlement by documentary evidence from the competent authority that he would complete specified term of engagement from the Armed Forces within the stipulated period of one year from the CLOSING DATE (i.e. 04.01.2012).

NOTE-IV: AGE CONCESSION IS NOT ADMISSIBLE TO SONS, DAUGHTERS AND DEPENDENTS OF EX-SERVICEMEN.

It is apparent therefrom that there was no age relaxation admissible on account of belonging to a border area pertaining to Punjab. Annexure XIII appended along with Annexure P8 placed on record relates to the State-wise vacancies available for candidates domiciled in the particular State as also reservation that was available for candidates in naxal and militancy affected area and select border Districts. Learned counsel has not been able to bring to the notice of this Court any specific stipulation in the public notice in the light of which any age relaxation was admissible for a candidate belonging to a border District. Even the communication dated 19.1.2013, Annexure P7, issued by the respondent-Commission in response to the legal notice served on behalf of the petitioner clearly notices the fact that there is no age relaxation admissible for border Districts candidate. For the reasons recorded above, there is no merit in the petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.