KESHO RAM Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE court has heard learned counsel for the appellant. On submissions urged rather strenuously that notwithstanding that he is over -age yet he be considered for employment under the rule of harness for a compassionate appointment. The court has seen the record of the writ petition as also the letters patent appeal.

(2.) NORMALLY , the court would not have made its observations but if ridiculous situations may make bad precedents then the time has come that the court must make its observations for the millions, who are unemployed and look to this rule oi harness jealously which virtually is a zamindari on government service of its own kind.

(3.) IN the present case, admittedly, the petitioner -appellant is beyond 40 years of age. On record he is acknowledged to be 43 years plus as on the date when he made the application. It is contended that the court must exercise its discretion to issue a writ of mandamus to the State that it must exercise its discretion on relaxation of the age. Can this be done ?