SHAMJIBHAI GOVINDBHAI RATHOD Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE BHAVNAGAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . 1 Rule. Mr. Anil Dave waives the service of rule.

(2.) . With the consent of both the sides the matter is taken up for final hearing. The petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste. He applied in response to the notice inviting applications dated 1-6-85 for the post of peon. The advertisement was issued by District Judge Bhavnagar. There is no dispute that on the date of making application in response to the aforesaid advertisement dated 1-6-85 the petitioner was within the age limit. On 21-8-86 the petitioner was interviewed and on this date also the petitioner was within the age limit. However the select list was made out in June 1988 and the petitioner was conveyed on 24-6-88 that he has been selected and there is no dispute that even at this time the petitioner was within the age limit. Mr. Dave has submitted that the District Judge Bhavnagar could not appoint the petitioner because of the instructions issued by the High Court on administrative side that even if a person is selected for an appointment in case he crosses the age limit at the time of giving him the appointment the appointment is not to be given. It does not appeal to reason as to how the petitioner could be informed as late as on 8-6-93 that he had crossed the age limit and therefore he could not be appointed. It does not appear to be correct to deny an appointment to a selected candidate who was within age limit at the time of filing application and even at the time of selection subsequently on the ground that the appointing authority had taken a decision not to give appointment to an incumbent who had crossed the age limit. The employment in these days is very valuable and the process of ageing continues even if the appointing authority does not issue the appointment orders despite one being in the select list. Therefore in my considered opinion the appointment cannot be denied if the selected candidate was within the age limit at the time of application and at the time of selection. He already stands recruited for appointment and therefore it is not at all justified to deny the appointment on the ground of crossing the age limit in case the candidate is within the age limit at the time of application and selection. The recruitment of the candidate and the selection for a particular post cannot be thwarted and made defeasible merely because in the course of time after selection the candidate has advanced in age. Thus I hold that the petitioner has been wrongly denied appointment on the post of peon on the ground of being over-age despite his selection.

(3.) . I am also fortified in my view by a decision of this Court reported in case of Popatbhai Ramjibhai Moghariya & Ors. v. District Judge Surendranagar & Ors. (1993 (2) G.L.R. p. 1539.