ISHRAT HABIB Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER applied for Combined Competitive Examination pursuant to notification -dated 20.2.2002 issued by Public Service Commission for preliminary examination. She was issued admit card and allowed to appear in the preliminary examination which was held in September 2002. Petitioner successfully qualified preliminary exam as notified vide notification dated 13.11.2002 issued by the Public Service Commission. On being declared successful she was issued admit card for the main examination for which she applied. After issuing the admit card for the main examination the petitioner was served with the communication dated 8.12.2003 through fax informing her that her candidature for the main examination stands cancelled as she was found under age by one year five months and fourteen days as on the cut of date. It is the communication which is assailed in this present petition.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner is that after having allowed to participate in the selection process and clearing the preliminary test and issuing admit card for the main examination, respondents are not entitled to cancel her candidature. On being put to notice respondent Public Service Commission has filed its objections stating therein that though the petitioner was allowed to appear in the preliminary examination. However, on examination it was found that she was ineligible being under age as on the cut of date and accordingly the candidature of the petitioner was cancelled. It is further stated that age of the eligible candidates is prescribed under Rule 5(ii) of SRO 161 and the petitioner being in eligible in terms of the said SRO is not entitled to be allowed to appear in the main examination. Respondents have further stated that petitioner has not qualified the Combined Competitive Examination (main) in terms of Rule 8 of SRO 161 of as she has fallen short of criteria fixed by the commission that is 25% marks in compulsory papers and 30% marks in optional papers for open merit category candidates.

(3.) ANOTHER judgment relied upon is Shri Krishan v. Kurukshet a reported in AIR 1976 SC page 377. In the case before the Apex Court, a candidate undergoing L.L.B course as a part time student was entitled to appear in the next examination subject to certain conditions as prescribed in the University statutes. One of the condition was that he has attended regular course for the prescribed number of academic years. A certificate was required to be issued by the Principal of the College/Head of the Department concerned. However, University had right to cancel the certificate before the examination if the candidate fails to attend the prescribed course of lectures before the end of the term. The college authority issued certificate to the candidate on the basis of which he participated in the examination. However, thereafter, the certificate was withdrawn due to deficiency in attendance of the requisite lectures. It was under these circumstances, the Apex Court observed as under: