MAITHREYI H. L. Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed W.P.No.24353/2024 seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Sanskrit. The application of the petitioner was not considered on the ground that the petitioner was over aged. He submits that the government has issued a order dtd. 18/5/2023, extending the upper age limit, however the respondents did not consider the Government Order dtd. 18/5/2023 as per Annexure C. He submitted that as per Annexure C, the petitioner is entitled to the post of lecturer in Sanskrit. The respondents committed an error in not considering her application vide Annexure-B. The action of the respondents in not considering the application of the petitioner is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

(3.) Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that on the date of submitting the application the petitioner was over aged. She submits that as per the notification issued by the respondent vide Annexure-A, the age of the candidate should be 40 years for General, OBC-43 years and SC/ST and Category-1 up to 45 years. Admittedly, the petitioner was 40 years 2 months 21 days. Thus, the petitioner was over aged, and her application to the post of Assistant Professor in Sanskrit is not tenable, and further, she submits that the Government Order dtd. 18/5/2023 has a prospective effect, and not retrospective effect. Admittedly the petitioner was over aged, and further, the petitioner is not eligible, and hence, rightly the petitioner's application was not considered and accordingly, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition.