RASHPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by petitioner-Rashpal Singh under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.3 to consider his claim for recruitment in the Punjab Police as Constable.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present petition are that respondent No.3 invited applications for filling up 5578 posts of Constables in Punjab Police in the year 2010. The petitioner being eligible applied for the same and his name was shown in the waiting list at Sr. No. 7 as per information obtained by him under RTI. The petitioner also came to know that his claim was rejected on the ground that his date of birth was mentioned as 11.4.1988 in place of 27.1990 in the school certificate. The date of birth of the petitioner was wrongly mentioned as 11.4.1988 in the school certificates, whereas, the correct date of birth is 27.1990 and the same was got corrected by the petitioner in his school certificates and submitted to respondent-authorities for considering his claim after correction in date of birth in the school certificates. The petitioner as well as respondents No. 4 to 9 secured 28 marks each and were shown in the waiting list. However, respondents No. 4 to 9 were shown above the petitioner and were selected as well on the ground that they were younger in age to the petitioner. The petitioner made representation to respondent-authorities but the same was not considered. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent-authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition to consider his claim for appointment to the post of Constable.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the date of birth of the petitioner was wrongly mentioned in the school certificate as 11.4.1988 and subsequently it was got corrected and was conveyed to the respondent-authorities but the same has not been considered in spite of making representation and repeated requests. Learned counsel further contends that respondents No.4 to 9 and petitioner secured equal marks i.e. 28 marks and respondents No.4 to 9 were appointed but the claim of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground that respondents No.4 to 9 were younger in age to the petitioner and by considering their date of birth, they have been appointed. The correct date of birth of the petitioner has not been taken into consideration and as such the petitioner was having right to be appointed being younger to respondents No.4 to 9.