LAWS(P&H)-2008-1-260

BASUDEV YADAV Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On January 21, 2008
BASUDEV YADAV Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a backward class candidate, has prayed for quashing of the letter/order dated 4.1.2007 (Annexure P-4) issued by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (for short the Commission)-respondent no.3, vide which his application for selection to the post of Mining Officer has been rejected on the ground of his being over-age. He has further prayed that the respondents be directed to consider him eligible for the post in question (as he is entitled to relaxation of 5 years in age).

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is presently working as a Mining Inspector in Mines and Geology Department, at Narnaul and belongs to backward class category. The Commission on 14.9.2006 vide advertisement no.7/2006 advertised one post of Assistant Geologist (for General Category) and three posts of Mining Officer (General=1, SC=1 and ESM=1) respectively for Mines and Geology Department, Haryana. The petitioner is stated to have applied for the abovesaid posts in the General Category and also deposited the fee of Rs.500/-which is meant for General category candidates,through proper channel on 27.9.2006. His application was recommended and forwarded to the Commission vide letter dated 9.10.2006 (Annexure P-1) by the respondent department, after considering him eligible with respect to age and qualification etc. The date of birth of the petitioner is 3.3.1965. it is stated that in the advertisement it was clearly mentioned that the candidates between the age of 21-40 years shall be eligible. Petitioner's application for the post of Mining Officer was rejected by the Commission vide letter dated 4.1.2007 (Annexure P-4) on the ground of his being over-age (i.e. 41 years 7 months approximately) on the cut off date i.e. 13.10/2006. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) Vide order dated 1.2.2007, at the time of issuing notice of motion, the following contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was noted: