CHANDRA MOHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJ.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case has come with the allegations that he had been initially appointed as a Driver on daily wages with effect from 14th Nov., 1986 by the Dy. CM & HO, Family Planning, Sikar. His services were terminated on 2nd Dec., 1986. He was again appointed on the same post of Driver with effect from 28th Jan., 1937. In Feb., 1987, the names were called from the Employment Exchange in order to give appointment on the post of Driver in the Medical & Health Department. The petitioner's candidature was sponsored by the Employment Exchange and 5th March, 1987 was fixed as the date for holding interviews, but on this date no interviews were held and the same were postponed to 21st March, 1987. No interviews were held on 21st March, 1987. The interviews were held on 22nd Aug., 1987. By this time, the services of the petitioner had been terminated from the post of Driver on 28th April, 1987 and the petitioner's candidature was not considered. The petitioner was interviewed earlier in Aug., 1987, but the petitioner alleges that appointment was not given to him only on the ground that the petitioner was over age. The petitioner's case is that till 25th April, 1987, be was within the age limit and had the interviews been held on 5th March, 1987, or even on 21st March, 1987, he would have been considered to be within age limit and could have been appointed. The counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. T. Ramkrishna (SC) (1971 (1) SLR 453). In para 13 of the judgment, the Supreme Court has given the directions as under:-

(2.) The petitioner has failed to disclose the date of birth in the writ petition or in the affidavit or in any other part of the pleadings; but the counsel for the petitioner submits that he had become over age only after 25th April, 1987. He also relied upon document Annexure-2 sent to the Director by the CM & HO, Sikar on 28th Aug., 1987, in which it has been mentioned that the dates for interviews on 5th March, 1987 and 21st March, 1987 were postponed and interviews were fixed on 22nd Aug., 1987 and during this period the petitioner became over age and, it was recommended that he may be accorded relaxation in getting his appointment in this department. These facts are not disputed even in the reply to the show cause notice filed on behalf of the respondents.

(3.) In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioner should not be treated as over age if he was within the age limit on 5th March, 1987 i.e. the first date on which interviews were fixed. It will be for the petitioner to satisfy the appointing authority that the petitioner was within the age limit on 5th March, 1987. In case, the petitioner is able to satisfy the appointing authority that the petitioner was within age limit as on 5th March, 1987, it would further consider as to whether the petitioner could be and is a suitable hand for appointment as Driver or not. In case, the petitioner is found to be within age limit as on 5th March, 1987 and is found to be a suitable candidate for appointment as Driver, the respondents would pass appropriate orders giving appointment to the petitioner on the post of Driver in the Medical & Health Department of the Government of Rajasthan subject to the availability of vacancy at present and in that case the appointment will be given to the petitioner now. However, this order will not enure any benefit pecuniary or otherwise in favour of the petitioner for any period prior to the date on which he may be appointed now in pursuance of this order within a period of three months from the date the copy of this order is made available to the appointing authority.