SUDIPTA MONDAL Vs. ARJUN KUMAR DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Mandamus-Appeal is at the instance of a third party in a writapplication and is directed against an order dated 19th March, 2008, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which the learned Single Judge, on the first day of moving the writ-application, disposed of the same by permitting the writpetitioner to appear at the interview for the purpose of selection for the post of Group-D staff of a school along with other sponsored candidates. His Lordship further directed that the case of the writ-petitioner should be considered at par with other sponsored candidates for such selection and the age-bar of the writpetitioner should be condoned.

(2.) PURSUANT to such direction given by His Lordship, the writ-petitioner appeared and stood first in the selection whereas the appellant before us was the second candidate in the panel. The appellant, with the leave of this Court, has preferred this appeal on the allegation that the writ-petitioner was not eligible to be selected for the post as he had crossed the age limit fixed for the said post. According to the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, the learned Single Judge erred in law in condoning the age-bar of the writ-petitioner when statute has fixed a particular age limit for the post. Mr. Ekramul Bari, the learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the School Authority and Mr. Jaydip Kar, the learned advocate on behalf of the writpetitioner, have opposed the aforesaid contention of the appellant and have contended that a High Court sitting in a writ-jurisdiction has the power and authority of condoning the age-limit created for a post in a given situation.

(3.) KHAGESH Kumar and Ors. vs. Inspector General of Registration and Ors., reported in AIR 1996 Supreme Court Page-471;