RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this application is for placing on record the documents i.e. Annexures P-9 and P-10. Application is allowed as prayed for subject to all just exceptions. Documents i.e. Annexures P-9 & P-10, are taken on record. CWP No. 5929 of 2017

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No. 5 could not have applied for the post as he was not eligible on the last date of receipt of the applications and thus, his candidature could not have been considered for appointment for the post of Chowkidar of the village. It is further contended that in pursuance to the applications called for appointment to the post of village Chowkidar, the petitioner applied for the post of Chowkidar. Other candidates have also applied including respondent No. 5. Munadi was held in the village on 5/5/2016. In the said munadi, it was specifically stated that the applicant should apply on or before 19/5/2016 (Annexure P-9). Although in the affidavit dtd. 2/2/2019 (Annexure P-10), it has been stated by Sh. Chanderbhan, the person who conducted the munadi, that the candidate should have completed 21 years of age but the same does not find mention in the report of munadi. Petitioner's counsel, however, contends that when Rules 3 and 4 of 'The Haryana Chowkidara (Watchman) Rules, 2011' (Annexure P-3) (hereinafter referred to as 2011 Rules) are taken into consideration, a person who is more than 21 years of age but less than 45 years of age could have applied. The date of birth of respondent No. 5-Sahil, is 27/9/1995 and therefore, was less than 21 years of age as on 5/5/2016 i.e. the date of proclamation as well as on 19/5/2016 i.e. the last date of receipt of applications. He contends that although the date of consideration and appointment of the Chowkidar was 6/1/2017 by the Collector, Panipat, respondent No. 5 could not be considered or appointed as he was not eligible to apply so his application could not have been accepted. He, accordingly, prays that the appointment of respondent No. 5 be set aside.

(3.) On the other hand, it is the stand of the counsel for the State as well as the counsel for respondent No. 5 that as per Rule 3 of the Chowkidara Rules, the eligibility has to be considered on the date of first appointment and obviously, the date of appointment is 6/1/2017 on which date, respondent No. 5 was eligible as he was more than 21 years of age on the said date. It is, accordingly, submitted that the contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted and deserves to be rejected.