SURENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions are based on common cause of action and since the reliefs claimed are common, these petitions were together for convenient disposal by a common judgment. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in each of these writ petitions as also Sri S.K. Singh, learned counsel representing the U. P. Public Service Commission and the standing counsel representing the State were heard for and against the reliefs claimed in these petitions.

(2.) It appears that the U. P. Subordinate Services Commission had advertised certain posts including the post of Regional inspector (Technical)/Assistant Regional Inspector (Technical) vide advertisement No. 2/96-97. The cutoff date for the purpose of determining the prescribed age limit was 1.7.1996. The last date for submission of applications was 26.11.1996. But before it could hold any examination pursuant to the said advertisement the U. P. Subordinate Service Commission was abolished by U. P. Ordinance No. 16 of 1997 and the posts falling within the purview of the U. P. Subordinate Services Commission were brought within the purview of the U. P. Public Service Commission. The petitioner was within the age limit as per advertisement issued by the U. P. Subordinate Services Commission but when the posts were re-advertised by the U. P. Public Service Commission vide advertisement No. A-4/E-1/1999, he surpassed the age limit by operation of the 'cut-off-date' namely, 1st July of the calendar year in which the advertisement was issued i.e., 1.7.1999. The cut-off-date so fixed in the advertisement is statutorily provided by the U. P. State Services (Age-Limits) Rules, 1972, as amended by 5th Amendment Rules, 1984. The petitioner admittedly became over-aged on the first date of July of the calendar year in which the vacancies for direct recruitment came to be advertised by the Public Service Commission. Since the candidature of the petitioner was liable to be rejected in terms of the advertisement itself, he filed the instant petition before he received an order of rejection of his candidature. This Court invited counter-affidavit and permitted the petitioner to take the examination of Assistant Regional Inspector (Technical) /Regional Inspector (Technical) subject, of course, to the ultimate decision of the writ petition. The result of the examination has been declared but so far as the petitioner is concerned, his result has not been declared ostensibly for the reason that he was permitted to appear in the examination subject to the result of the writ petition. Now the matter has come up for final disposal.

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner was well within the age limit prescribed by the relevant service rules as per advertisement issued by the U. P. Subordinate Service Commission but outran the age limit when the vacancies were re-advertised by the U. P. Public Service Commission. The petitioner, it has been submitted by the counsel, cannot be fastened with any blame owing to the fact that the Subordinate Services Commission was abolished and the posts were brought within the purview of the U. P. Public Service Commission. It has been further submitted for the petitioner that in respect of the posts of Naib Tehsildar a provision was made in the advertisement itself that the candidates who had applied for the posts pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Subordinate Services Commission within the prescribed age limit as per advertisement then issued could apply pursuant to the advertisement issued by the U. P. Public Service Commission while no such benefit was given in relation to the post of Regional Inspector (Technical)/ Assistant Regional Inspector (Technical) and this, proceeds the submission, is arbitrary and violates the equality clause of the Constitution.