Navendra Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 28 July, 2016

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Jharkhand High Court

Navendra Kumar Yadav vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors on 28 July, 2016

Bench: H.C. Mishra

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                             W.P.(S) No.4893 of 2015

          Navendra Kumar Yadav                                           .....   Petitioner
                                         Versus
          1. The State of Jharkhand.
          2. The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Dumka
          3. The Registrar, Civil Court, Dumka                           ....      Respondents

          CORAM:         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.C. MISHRA

          For the Petitioner             :        Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate
                                                  Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate
                                                  Mr. Lalit Yadav, Advocate
          For the Respondents            :        Mr. Atanu Banerjee, G.A.
                                         -----

3/28.07.2016

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State-

Respondents.

2. Petitioner has filed this writ application for direction upon the respondent authorities to appointment him in class-IV post under Dumka Judgeship, as the application of the petitioner was wrongly rejected on the basis of being overage. The petitioner claims that in view of the fact that the petitioner belonged to physically handicapped category, he was entitled to the relaxation in the age for five years, as per the advertisement.

3. The advertisement, which was published for appointment on class-IV posts under Dumka Judgeship, has been brought on record as Annexure-1, in which, there was provision for relaxation of five years of age for the candidates belonging to physically handicapped category. The petitioner has also brought on record Annexure-2, which is the application submitted by the petitioner, pursuant to Annexure-1, which clearly shows that the petitioner had applied in general category and not in physically handicapped category, though the certificate that petitioner is a physically handicap person, was also attached with the application. The petitioner received the information as contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application, whereby he was informed that his candidature was rejected as he was overage.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the candidature of the petitioner has been wrongly rejected in view of the fact that the petitioner belonged to handicapped category and accordingly, he was entitled for relaxation of five years of age in that category. It is however, an admitted position that on the date of application, the petitioner had crossed the age of 35 years, which was the maximum age limit for general category candidates. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that it is a fit case for directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on Class-IV post.

5. Learned counsel for the State has opposed the prayer.

6. The application submitted by the petitioner as contained in Annexure-2, clearly shows that he had applied in general category and not in physically handicapped category. In that view of the matter, there is no illegality in the rejection of the application of the petitioner on the ground that he was overage as a general category candidate.

7. There is no merit in this application and the same is accordingly, dismissed.

      R.Kumar                                                                    (H. C. Mishra, J)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court