Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 2411 (ALL)

RAJVIR SINGH v. STATE OF U P

2007-09-20

RAKESH TIWARI

body2007
RAKESH TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record. ( 2 ) AN advertisement was published in "vividh Rozgar Darshan on 30. 7. 2007 for filling up the vacancies with regard to the post of Telegraphic Peon/mate. The age of the candidates provided in the aforesaid advertisement was between 18 to 32 years. ( 3 ) THE contention of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has already worked in the department for about 8 months and further that by Government Order dated 21st January, 2000 the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of his power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India has been pleased to enhance the maximum age limit for recruitment on the post of Class IV from 32. to 35 years. ( 4 ) THE G. O. dated 21st January, 2000 is as under: ( 5 ) IT is further contended by the Counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has worked in the department for about 8 months, he may be given relaxation in age in view of the aforesaid G. O. ( 6 ) IT appears that the age of the petitioner at present is about 40 years. Even if he is granted relaxation in age for the period of 8 months of work which he has put in the service of the department he would not be entitled to apply for the said post under the aforesaid advertisement. ( 7 ) IN so far as the G. O. dated 21st January, 2000 is concerned, it provides maximum age limits 35 years for application by the candidates for appointment i. e. authority could have fixed the maximum age up to 32 years earlier and up to 35 years now for considering applications from the eligible candidates. A perusal of the impugned advertisement shows that the applications were invited from the candidates between 18 to 32 years of age, which is well within 35 years of age. The maximum age limit of 35 years is provided in the aforesaid G. O. and is not contrary to it. ( 8 ) THERE is no illegality or infirmity in the advertisement impugned in the writ petition. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition Dismissed. .