PRADEEP KUMAR BHARDWAJ Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. Petitioner's service was dispensed with by an order dated 6th February, 1990 contained in Annexure IV to the writ petition on the ground that when he was enrolled, on 15th November, 1989, as an Excise Constable, on the post of Driver, he was only 17 years, 2 months and a few days old. Therefore, the mini mum age having been prescribed as 18 years, he could not have been appointed and as such, his service was immediately dispensed with.

(2.) MR. A. K. Gaur, learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the said. order, first on the ground that in the adver tisement contained in Annexure I, by which the applications were invited, no minimum or maximum age was presc ribed. Therefore, it is not open to the department to dispense with the petiti oner's service on the ground that the petitioner did not attain the minimum age. He secondly contends that there was no allegation that the petitioner had con cealed his date of birth. On the other hand, he had applied with the High School Cer tificate as was provided in the said adver tisement and upon scrutinizing the same, the petitioner was called for as interview and was so selected with eyes of the select ing authority open and therefore, they are estopped from dispensing with the petitioner's service on the said ground. Alternatively he contends that by reason thereof, the respondents had relaxed the necessity of minimum age in the case of the petitioner by conduct. By reason thereof, the service of the petitioner could not have been dispensed with. He next contends that since the petitioner was selected and found suitable and was engaged even if he was not eligible, when he was selected, still his case should be considered afresh after he completed 18 years of age and may be reinstated after, such time. In support of this contention, MR. Gaur contended that by efflux of time, the petitioner has be come over aged for any other service. Therefore, a compassionate view should be taken in respect of the petitioner's case. MR. Guar had also relied on several decisions cited at the Bar in support of his contention, which I propose to deal with at appropriate stage.

(3.) THERE is no dispute with regard to the fact that the petitioner's date of birth was 10th August, 1972 and the interview was fixed on 25th October, 1989 while. selection was made on 15th November, 1989 and the appointment was also given on the same date while his service was terminated on 6th February, 1990. Thus it appears that on the date when the applica tion was made or interview was held or till the selection and appointment was given, the petitioner remained below 18 years of age. He was even below 18 years on 6th February, 1990 when he was about 17 years, six months, less by two days.