SUNIL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Regard being had to the similitude of the question involved on the joint request these matters are analogously heard and decided by this common order. Petitioner in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged the order dtd. 21/1/2020 (Annexure P/1), whereby he was held to be ineligible/disqualified for appointment on the vacant post of Peon because petitioner admittedly solemnized marriage before attaining the age of 21 years and because two children of petitioner were born after 26/1/2001.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the facts are not in dispute in the instant case. The petitioner was appointed as Process Server in the year 1998. While working as Process Server, the petitioner wanted appointment as Peon but he was held to be ineligible as per M.P. Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 ( Rules, 1961)

(3.) Shri Pushpendra Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 6 of the said rules was omitted w.e.f. 24/5/2013 and therefore, the said Rule cannot be an impediment for the petitioner.