GAUTAM KUMAR CHAUDHARY Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE counsel for the appellant admitted that the date of birth of the appellant is 15th February, 1979. He did not dispute that as per the advertisement dated 5th May, 1997, the appellant did not fulfill the age eligibility as he was seventeen years ten months and fourteen days while the minimum age prescribed was eighteen years as on 31st December, 1996.

(2.) HE , however, raised three fold submission viz; (i) that the cut off date 31st December, 1996 suffers from arbitrariness and has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved; (ii) that the appellant having been given appointment in the year 2005, equity demanded that even if his appointment suffered from illegality, the appointment ought not to have been cancelled and (iii) that the appellant was entitled to the payment of salary for the period he worked. That the recruitment in the government service has to be made in accord with the Service Rules and not de hors is a settled legal position. If the age eligibility is prescribed on a particular date for recruitment in the government service, the candidate has to meet that requirement. While fixing cut off date, there is always a possibility of an argument as to why a particular date has been fixed and not some other date but that does not make the date so fixed arbitrary.

(3.) MOREOVER , if the cut off date 31st December, 1996 suffered from arbitrariness or had no nexus to the object sought to be achieved, the petitioner ought to have put in issue the legality and correctness of the said date immediately after the advertisement was issued and published, which was done on 5th May, 1997, but admittedly, the petitioner kept quiet. It is only after his appointment has been cancelled as it was found that he has been appointed against law since he did not fulfill the age eligibility, the petitioner has now sought to challenge the very fixation of cut off date. We are afraid, the contention of the counsel cannot be accepted.