Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1037 (ALL)

JAGAT SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2010-03-30

A.P.SAHI

body2010
JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. 2. By the impugned order dated 28th August, 2007 the petitioner’s candidature has been cancelled on the ground that the petitioner had mentioned the wrong date of birth in his certificate as a result whereof during verification his selection has been cancelled. This Court had called the respondents to file a counter-affidavit. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Mr. Jay Narain Singh, Dy S.P., Agra who states that the matter was enquired into from the Board of High School, U.P. Examinations and the report which was received indicates that the date of birth of the petitioner was 15.7.1986 and not 15.7.1985. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that firstly, either way even if the date of birth is 15.7.1986 and not 15.7.1985, the petitioner is eligible as the eligibility criteria under the advertisement is that the candidates should be between 18 to 20 years of age as on 1st of January, 2005. 4. The aforesaid calculation as suggested by the learned counsel for the petitioner in my opinion is absolutely correct arithmetically and even otherwise the petitioner was above 18 years of age and less than 20 years of age as on 1st of January, 2005 computing from either of the dates i.e. 15th July, 1985 or 15th July, 1986. The petitioner, therefore, had no occasion to misrepresent his date of birth as he was qualified and eligible in both ways. No motive can be imputed to the petitioner. 5. The report which has been filed as an annexure along with the counter-affidavit has absolutely no relevance or bearing to the case of the petitioner. In the said report, nine candidates are shown and the name of the petitioner is absent in the said document. In view of this the stand taken in the counter-affidavit is not supported by the document, which has been filed along with the counter-affidavit. 6. It is not the allegation of the respondents that the certificate and the mark-sheets have been forged or that there was any error in the signature of the authority. The certificate has been issued by the Secretary Mr. Basudeo Yadav. There is no denial in the counter-affidavit that the certificate was not issued by the Board. 6. It is not the allegation of the respondents that the certificate and the mark-sheets have been forged or that there was any error in the signature of the authority. The certificate has been issued by the Secretary Mr. Basudeo Yadav. There is no denial in the counter-affidavit that the certificate was not issued by the Board. In such a situation, there might be a clerical error or a typographical error in the date of birth of the petitioner which in no way dis-entitles the petitioner to apply as a candidate between the age of 18 to 20 years. The stand of the respondent is, therefore, against record and in defiance of logic. The order dated 28th August, 2007 is, therefore, unsustainable. It is accordingly quashed. The respondents are directed to treat the petitioner’s candidature to be valid and appropriate, consequential benefits be extended to the petitioner within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. ————