Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This special appeal js directed against the judgment and order dated 3.3.2000 of learned single Judge by which Writ Petition No. 20771 of 1999 in which the appellant was one of the petitioners was dismissed.

2. The Dy. Inspector General of Police (Karmik], U. P. Police Headquarters, Allahabad (In short, the D.I.G.) issued an advertisement on 4,10.1991 inviting applications for making selection for 525 posts of Sub-Inspector of Police (both men and women) through direct recruitment. In the advertisement, the upper age-limit for the candidates was mentioned as 30 years and those born between 1,7.1961 and 1.7.1971 were eligible for making applications. The selection process initiated by the aforesaid advertisement was cancelled by the order dated 9.6.1994. and another advertisement was issued on 24.6.1994 for filling up 67S posts of sub-Inspectors of police. In this advertisement also, the upper age-limit was mentioned as 30 years. The appellant claims to have made an application in pursuance of this advertisement. The order dated 9.6.1994 by which the selection process initiated in pursuance of the advertisement dated 4.10.1991 had been cancelled was. however, challenged by tiling Writ Petition No. 14653 of 1994, Ram Daras Rai v. State of U. P. and others, which was allowed on 23.5.1995. The order dated 9,6.1994 was quashed and a direction was issued to the respondents to complete the selection process which was commenced on the basis of the advertisement dated 4.10.1991. In pursuance to the judgment of the High Court, the selection process was completed and the result was declared on 2.12.1996. Since a substantial number of posts were filled in, the process for selection commenced in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24.6.1994 was not carried any further and no examination or interview took place. The advertisement issued on 24.6.1994 for filling up of 675 posts of sub-inspectors of police was cancelled and the candidates were intimated through a news-item published in the newspapers that they could take back the fee deposited by them.

4. The principal submission of Sri S. C. Budhwar, learned senior counsel for the appellant, is that the U. P. Recruitment to Service (Age Limit) Rules. 1972 (In short, the 1972 Rules) provides that the upper age-limit for recruitment to all services and posts under the rule-making power of the Governor is 32 years and. therefore, the prescription of 25 years as the upper age-limit in the advertisement issued on 4.5.1999 is illegal. The other submission is that the appellant had made an application in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24.6.1994 and, as the said selection process was not completed, the appellant was entitled to be granted relaxation in age and his candidature should be considered in the present selection. Sri P. M. N. Singh, learned Additional Advocate General, and Sri Sabhajit Vadav. learned standing counsel, have on the other hand, submitted that the provisions of the 1972 Rules are not applicable to the recruitment being made for the post of sub-inspectors of police which is governed by Government Orders issued from time to time. They have further submitted that the mere fact that the appellant had made an application in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24.6.1994 and was eligible with regard to the age qualification at that time can be no ground to grant him relaxation in age in the selection which is to take place in pursuance to the advertisement dated 4.5.1999.

21. The second point urged by learned counsel for the appellant has hardly any merit. The appellant acquired no right by merely making an application in pursuance to the advertisement issued on 24.6.1994. The said advertisement was cancelled even before the process for selection had begun as the order dated 9.6.1994 cancelling the earlier advertisement dated 4.10.1991 and the consequent selection process was quashed by the High Court in C.M. Writ Petition No. 14653 of 1994. Ram Daras Rai a. State of U. P., on 23.5.1995 and a direction was issued to complete the selection process which was in fact done. The candidates were informed to take back the fee deposited by them. The appellant can take no benefit of the fact that he had made an application in pursuance to the advertisement issued on 24.6.1994.