YOGENDRAKUMAR RATILAL RAVAL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these petitions the prescription of age limit as on 1-7-1992 under the advertisement dated 13-10-1992 issued by the District Primary Education Officer has been directly or indirectly under challenge by invoking Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. It is generally the case of the petitioners that if some date subsequent to the advertisement was earmarked, they would have been eligible for being considered for the post of Primary Teachers as by that time they would have completed the minimum required age of 18 years. They have placed reliance upon decisions in Special Civil Application Nos. 3678 of 1988 dt. 27-7-1988, 6394 of 1988 dtd. 19-10-1988, 7769 of 1988 dtd. 30-11-1988, 8335 of 1988 dtd. 28-12-1988, 1777 of 1992 dtd. 1-10-1992, 6166 of 1991 dtd. 23-4-1992 and /. J. Makwana v. District Primary Education Committee, [1992 (1)] XXXIII (1) GLR 382.

(2.) In Special Civil Application No. 3678 of 1988 between Miss Kalpanaben Babubhai Patel v. Administrative Officer, District Panchayat, Bulsar, decided on 27-7-1988 (Coram : S. B. Majmudar, J. as he then was). Rule 4 of the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Recruitment of Primary Teacher) Rules, 1970 coupled with explanation thereto came to be considered. There the respondents had issued a public advertisement on 13-8-1987 calling for applications from the candidates who were desirous of being considered for being appointed as Primary Teachers in the schools under the administrative control of the respondents. So far as age limit was concerned, it was mentioned that the candidates must be between 18 and 28 years of age on 2-7-1987. The petitioner there completed 17 years and one month on 1-7-1987 and, therefore, she was under age. The Court was informed on the date of decision, namely, 27-7-1988 that the interviews were being held from 26-7-1988 and they would continue till 27-7-1988, i. e., on the date when the judgment was being pronounced. Admittedly on that day the petitioner completed 18 years of age. In the context of such facts, the word 'recruitment' appearing in the proviso, which will hereinafter be reproduced, was held applicable on the ground that it was only in July, 1988 that the recruitment was being made. Consequently it was held that there was no reason for the respondents not to permit the petitioner to appear in the ensuing interview since the petitioner completed 18 years of age. The point to be noted from this decision is that the interviews were not held for a period of about one year after the issuance of advertisement.

(3.) In Special Civil Application No. 6394 of 1988 decided on 19-10-1988 by this Court (Coram : A. P. Ravani, J.) between Mukeshkumar Maganlal Patel and Anr. v. Director of Primary Education, Gujarat State and Anr., reported in [1989 (2)] XXX (2) GLR 1135 the petitioners applied for the post of Primary School Teachers pursuant to the advertisement dtd. 9-12-1987 and they were excluded from the interview on the ground that they were not eligible as they had not completed 18 years of age on the relevant date. After setting out the explanation to Rule 4, the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents came to be considered. It was the Submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents that the term year in the explanation should be read as school year which has been defined as the period commencing from 1st June, and ending of 31st May. It was held as under :