Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 47 (PAT)

Ranjeet Kumar v. Union of India

2014-01-10

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2014
ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General on behalf of Respondent-Union of India. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the letter dated 24.10.2013 issued by the Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force whereby the petitioner’s candidature for appointment to the post of Constable / GD in (Central Armed Police Forces) CAPFs, against the advertisement dated 27.05.2013 has been rejected. 3. Even as per the pleadings, as contained in the writ application, the minimum eligibility criteria for age as per the said advertisement was 18 years as on 01.01.2013. The petitioner’s date of birth is 20.03.1995. He was thus, 2 months and 19 days short of the required age as per the said advertisement for appointment to the post of Constable / GD in CAPFs. 4. It is the contention on behalf of the petitioner that he was allowed to participate in the process of selection and because of his excellent performance, he was finally selected and placed in the merit-list. He submits that in such circumstance, the requirement of age should have been relaxed in case of the petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner attained the age of 18 years as on the date of publication of the result and in such circumstance, the petitioner’s candidature should not be cancelled. 5. It is difficult to accept the submission made on behalf of the petitioner as per the petitioner’s itself, he was not eligible in terms of the age as per the criteria laid down in advertisement itself. Only because the petitioner was somehow or other allowed to participate in the process of selection and, thereafter, his name was placed in the merit-list, the eligibility cannot relaxed in his case as there must have been many candidates who must not have applied in similar circumstances in considering themselves to be ineligible as per the criteria laid down in the advertisement. Such approach would be against the principles of fairness in the process of selection and it would discriminatory, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 6. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this application. This application is accordingly dismissed.