A P PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION Vs. G SANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applications were called for selecting group I services in the State of Andhra pradesh which included the post of Deputy superintendent of Police as well. The maximum age within which a candidate could apply for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police was 26 years while for other posts the maximum age was 32 years. The respondents did not opt for the posts of Deputy superintendents at all in the preference given by them. Subsequently, certain persons challenged the procedure adopted by the appellant in fixing the age-limit before the tribunal. The tribunal by an order made in rf No. 2599 of 1987 struck down a portion of GOMs No. 354 thereby enabling all those applicants who had appeared for the posts conducted by the appellant for appointment to the post mentioned in the advertisement to be eligible for all the posts even if their age is beyond 26 years but their age is less than 32 years. That order was made on 9/10/1987. The respondents preferred applications before the tribunal in the year 1988. The tribunal relying upon their earlier decision allowed their applications. Hence, aggrieved by the order made by the tribunal. the appellant has come up in this appeal by special leave.

(2.) We have been taken through the petition filed before the tribunal by Respondents 1 and 2 and it is pointed out that they did not opt for the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Deputy Superintendents of jails, Divisional Fire Officers and Assistant excise Superintendents inasmuch as they were beyond the age of 26 years. Whatever may be the reason for not opting for those posts when they placed themselves beyond the zone of considerations, the question of considering their case for the aforesaid posts would not arise at all. The law declared by the tribunal in respect of those who had exercised option in respect of posts cannot be made applicable to the respondents in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

(3.) In that view of the matter we do not find any justification for the tribunal to have interfered with the selection made so far as respondents 1 and 2 are concerned. The appeal is therefore allowed and the order made by the tribunal is set aside.