RAJKUMAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.

(2.) In this petition the grievance of the petitioner relates to refusal on the part of the respondents to consider his claim for appointment in the post of peon solely on the ground that he had crossed the maximum age requirement on the date of the interview and that the same is contrary to the eligibility criteria in that regard disclosed in the advertisement inviting the applications and the law laid down by the Apex Court in Shankar K. Mandal and others v. State of Bihar and others, 2003 AIR(SC) 4043.

(3.) The respondent No.4, in the case in hand, had issued an advertisement on 1-2-2002 calling for applications to fill-up the post of peons and sepoys in the District and Civil Courts. On having applied for the said post and duly interviewed, the petitioner was selected and shown in the select list for the purpose of appointment in the post of peon. However, as the number of candidates who were satisfying all the eligibility criteria exceeded the number of posts available, a waiting list was prepared and as the petitioner could not secure the post on merit basis amongst the selected candidates, though he was otherwise found eligible, his name was included in the wait-list. Meanwhile, certain vacancies occurred in the Labour and the Industrial Courts and the said list was forwarded to the concerned authorities of the Labour and the Industrial Courts with intimation to the petitioner and the other persons whose names were recorded in the wait-list informing them that they could opt for the post in those Courts, subject to satisfaction of the requirement of the eligibility criteria in that regard to the posts in those Courts. Accepting the said offer, the petitioner approached the concerned authorities and he was subjected to interview by those authorities. However, even though he was otherwise found eligible for appointment in the said post, his claim was rejected solely on the ground that on the day of the interview he was found over-age. While contending that the advertisement, in response to which the petitioner was selected for the post of peon and his name was subsequently recorded in the wait-list, the prescribed age limit was as on the date of the advertisement and not on the date of the interview. On the other hand, it is the case of the respondents that on oral instructions from the High Court, the authorities decided to consider the age as on the date of the interview.