ANUJ KUMAR Vs. CANTONMENT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed for a writ of certiorari to quash the appointment letter dated October 7, 1991, appointing respondent No. 4 as Asstt. Engineer (Civil) Annexure-7 to the writ petition) and for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to appoint the petitioner on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in the Cantonment Board, Meerut. We have heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri J.N Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent and have perused the record.

(2.) The dispute relates to the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) in. the Cantonment Board, Meerut. This post fell vacant and the Cantonment Board called for the names of eligible persons from the Employment Exchange which was sent by the Employment Exchange vide letter dated July 16, 1991. A true copy of the letter of the Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board, Meerut to the Employment Exchange dated July 9, 1991 is Annexure-1 to the writ] petition. The petitioner's name was also sent by the Employment Exchange for the said post and an interview was held on August 26, 1991 for the said post. The petitioner has alleged that the Cantonment Board has illegally selected respondent No. 4 K.A. Gupta who was at the time Overseer in the Cantonment Board. The petitioner has firstly alleged that Shri K.A. Gupta was not qualified for the post as he did not hold degree of B.E. (Civil) and only held a diploma. The second ground for challenge of the selection of the respondent No. 4 was that in the letter of the Executive Officer of the Board dated July 9, 1991 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) it was mentioned that the age limit was between 18 to 25 years whereas Shri Gupta was much more than 25 years old at the relevant time.

(3.) In the counter affidavit filed in this petition by Shri Gupta dated January 19, 1992 he has; disclosed his age as 37 years. It means that he was about 36 years of age at the relevant time and hence above the age limit. The third ground of challenge to the appointment of respondent No. 4 is that the said post was to be filled in by direct recruitment, while in fact it has been filled in by promotion of Shri Gupta.