TASHI CHOTTON Vs. STATE OF ARUNACHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the APPSC.

(2.) Pursuant to an advertisement issued on 6th of August, 2001, the petitioner has submitted his application for the post of Medical Officer, Allopathy. The petitioner, however, did not file any document in proof of his age and, as such, her application was rejected. Hence, the present application under article 226 of the Constitution. The respondents have filed an affidavit-in-opposition stating inter alia that the requirement to submit the age proof certificate is a mandatory requirement and this was disclosed in the advertisement and as well as in the concerned Form and non-production of the said certificate, which was a major defect in the application of the petitioner, the application was rejected.

(3.) In the present case, there is no dispute at the bar that the advertisement dated 6.8.2001, Annexure-III, which provides that matriculation or Board of Secondary School Certificates or the Admit Card in proof of his age are required to be submitted with the application. In the Form of the application also under Serial No. 6, the above facts are mentioned. In the present case, petitioner has fairly admitted that no such certificate or admit card was submitted by him in support of his age or to proof of her age as required. The case of the petitioner is that the above requirement is not an essential requirement and it was not mandatory and for her failure to do so, the petitioner cannot be shunted out.