RAVINDER KUMAR Vs. STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has approached this Court assailing the action of the respondents rejecting his candidature at the fag end after his selection has been made to the post of Constable (GD) in the Border Security Force.

(2.) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, on the basis of a hand bill issued by one Gupta and Company, according to which, the age had to be between 18 to 23 years on 04.03.2011, submitted an application for appointment to the post of Constable (GD). Petitioner having cleared all the tests, which were required to be undergone and having been selected at the fag end has not been issued the appointment letter. On verification, the petitioner has been supplied information under the Right to Information Act that the petitioner is not eligible as per the age criteria advertised by the Staff Selection Commission. As per the Employment News dated 5/11-02-2011 where the advertisement was issued inviting applications for filling up of a post of Constable (GD) in BSF, CISF, CRPF, SSB, as per clause 4(a) which prescribed the age in the age criteria as 18 to 23 years as on 01.08.2011. It was further clarified that the applicant should not have born before 02.08.1988 or after 31.07.1993 whereas the date of birth of the petitioner is 04.07.1988. This, the counsel for the petitioner contends, is not sustainable as the age has to be taken into consideration on the last date of submission of the application form, which was 04.03.2011, on which date the petitioner fulfilled the requisite age criteria of age of between 18 to 23 years. He, on this basis, contends that the action of the respondents is violative of the principles as laid down by various judgments of this Court as well as the Supreme Court that the age has to be seen on the last date of receipt of the applications. He further contends that if the application of the petitioner had to be rejected, it should have been done at the initial stage and at this belated stage when the petitioner has been duly selected, the respondents cannot, on the basis of he not fulfilling the criteria of age, be ousted as the principle of estoppel would operate against the respondents. Prayer has thus, been made for allowing the present writ petition.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and with his assistance, have gone through the records of the case.