MAJOR SINGH Vs. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The facts of the case which reveal the case of the petitioner shows that the Advertisement No. 1/91 was issued on 1.6.1991 to fulfil the post of IIIrd grade teachers by the respondents. Minimum age limits for the applicant prescribed was to be 18 yrs. of age and maximum age was not exceeding 33 yrs. The advertisement as was initially published, showed that the relevant date for completing the minimum age was as on 1.1.1991, whereas the maximum age for the same purpose was not to be attained upto 1.1.1992 in the advertisement notice Annexure-P7. It was corrected by corrigendum Annexure-P2 from 1.1.1992 to 1.1.1991. There is no doubt and dispute that on 1.5.1991 the petitioner had not completed 33 years of age and he was eligible to make the application for consideration his appointment on the post.

(3.) In fact, out of the same selection, three candidates whose date of births fall on 7.7.1958, 1.7.1958 and 6.7.1958 respectively of Banshidhar, Jagpal Singh and Gulab Singh, were selected and found in order of merit at No. 33, 60, 146 of the main list and were given appointments. However, subsequent thereto further appointments were given in the same select list in November, 1992 by preparing a final merit list in which the petitioner's name did not find place and his name was excluded from the merit list altogether.