ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a Post Graduate in Botany from A. P. S. University, Rewa, was serving in a Central Reserve Police Force as Assistant Sub Inspector and at the time of filing the original application before the Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (in short 'the Tribunal') had put in seven years of service in Central Reserve Police Force. The Director General of Police, Bhopal, the respondent No. 2 herein, had invited applications for various categories of post like Subedar, Sub Inspector and Platoon Commander. The last date for submission of the application was 30-6-98. The notification inviting applications envisaged relaxation of age for such candidates who were serving in the State Government or Central Government. The relaxation of age was upto 36 years of age and, therefore, the petitioner was eligible to apply for the post. Being a Government employee the petitioner was required to submit no objection certificate from the Commandant which he submitted. The application submit- ted by the petitioner was complete in all respects and he was directed to go for the physical test which was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bhopal and in the said test he found fit. According to the writ petitioner his height was 77 cms. , Chest was 86 cms. and on expansion it was 94 cms. The petitioner was allotted a roll number for the purpose of written examination and accordingly he appeared in the written examination. The result of the successful candidate was notified in daily newspaper 'dainik Bhaskar' and the roll number which was allotted to the petitioner 621145 and it was found in the list of successful candidates. He was issued call letter for physical examination on 29-11 -98 and in the said examination he secured 79 marks and was declared successful. Thereafter, he was called for personal interview on 30-11-98. At the time of interview he submitted all his testimonials for verification. It is urged that the petitioner had performed well in all the tests but eventually his name did not appear in the list of selected candidates. This compelled the petitioner to go to the Police Headquarters for obtaining the mark-sheet and he was told that the mark-sheet was yet to be prepared. As pleaded, he met the AIG (Selection) who verified from the original record and informed him that he secured 231 marks whereas the last candidate had obtained 216 marks. He was further informed that he was not selected as he was aged 30 years and the relaxation of age was not available to the Central Government employees. Being dissatisfied he submitted a representation on 1-1-99 but nothing fruitful ensued. In this backdrop a prayer has been made to issue a command to the respondent No. 2 to include the name of the petitioner in the Selection List and issue an order of appointment for the post of Sub Inspector/platoon Commander pursuant to the advertisement contained in Annexure A-l. In addition, a prayer has also been made to declare that the petitioner is entitled for relaxation being a Central Government employee.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the answering respondents contending, inter alia, that the relevant recruitment rules which are applicable in the case of Subedar/platoon Commander/sub Inspectors are M. P. Police Executive (Non-Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1977 (for brevity 'the Rules') and the Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules stipulates conditions of eligibility of the candidates for direct recruitment. It is putforth that the said rule does not envisage any kind of age relaxation in respect of candidates for direct recruitment who are engaged in Central Government services. It is submitted that the form of the petitioner was accepted due to oversight though the petitioner could not have been permitted to appear in the examination being more than 28 years of age. It is highlighted that when it was discovered that the benefit of age relaxation has been erroneously extended to the petitioner his name was deleted from the list in question.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Praveen Dubey, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Harish Agnihotri, learned Government Advocate for the State.