FAROOQ AHMAD NANGROO Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE vacancy of ReT was to be supplied in Middle School, Shumnag. Applications were invited for the same vide advertisement notice dated 13.08.2009 but on 14.12.2009 same has been withdrawn. Then re -advertisement notice shown to have been prepared by Zonal Education Officer, Chadoora (respondent No.4) on 30.12.2009, has been published in daily newspaper "Srinagar Times" in its issue dated 31st December, 2009. Petitioner as well as respondent No.5 have applied. Admittedly petitioner is superior in merit as compared to respondent No.5 but his age has been found to be below 18 years as on 01.01.2009 based on which he was declared ineligible.

(2.) ACCORDING to learned counsel for the petitioner, in the re -advertisement notice it is clearly indicated that last date will be the cutoff date for determining age/qualification/merit, the cutoff date would be 9th of January, 2010, therefore, in the month of January, 2010, petitioner had attained the age of majority i.e. he was 18 years. In addition contended that Article 37 of CSR, which prescribes minimum/maximum age for appointment, is not applicable.

(3.) THE next contention to be considered is as to whether the candidate must possess requisite age, qualification/merit on the cutoff date as notified in the advertisement notice. Answer has to be "no" because Article 37 of CSR prescribes minimum and maximum age to be determined on 1st January of the year in which advertisement notice is issued. In the instant case admittedly re - advertisement notice has been issued on 30.12.2009 and published in daily newspaper "Srinagar Times" dated 31st December, 2009 which position is admitted as the petitioner in the application which he had filed in response to the said re -advertisement notice, has categorically mentioned that "in pursuance to re -advertisement notice published in Srinagar Times on 31st December, 2009, he seeks consideration". Therefore, the minimum or maximum age is to be determined as on 01.01.2009, when it is so, admittedly on 01.01.2009 petitioner had not attained the age of majority i.e. he was below 18 years of age.