Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

  "5.     Pursuant to the directions contained in the earlier judgment of   the   High   Court   as   affirmed   by   this   Court,   a   fresh   exercise   was   undertaken.   Since   the   present   appellants   were   not   selected,   writ   petitions were filed before the High Court. In the writ petition which   was filed by fifty­five persons and disposed of by the Division Bench   the   conclusions   were   essentially   as   follows:   (1)   Some   of   the   writ   petitioners (Writ Petitioners 5, 18, 23, 28, 41 and 53) were overage   at   the   time   of   their   initial   appointment   and   their   cases   were,   therefore, wholly covered by the directions given by the High Court,   and they were not entitled to relaxation of age; (2) So far as Writ   Petitioners 6, 26, 30 and 55 are concerned, the stand was that they   had not crossed the age­limit at the time of making the applications   for appointment and, therefore, were within the age­limit at the time   of initial appointment and were, therefore, entitled to relaxation of   age in terms of the judgment passed by the High Court earlier and   affirmed by this Court. This plea was turned down on the ground that   what was relevant for consideration related to the age at the time of   initial appointment and not making of the application; (3) As regards   Writ Petitioner 24, he was underage at the time of appointment. He   was permitted to file a representation before the Director of Primary   Education   and   the   High   Court   ordered   that   his   case   would   be   considered afresh; (4) In respect of Writ Petitioners 9 and 17, it was   noted that they were refused absorption on the ground that they had   not   made   any   application   in   response   to   advertisement   issued   pursuant to the order passed by this Court. Since no material was   placed   to   substantiate   this   stand   and   no   reasons   had   been   communicated   for   non­absorption,   direction   was   given   to   consider   representations if made by them within one month from the date of   judgment. The  said  judgment  is under  challenge in  CA  No.  916  of   1999.   The   appellants   have   taken   the   stand   that   in   terms   of   this   Court's judgment, a person who was not overage on the date of initial   appointment was to be considered. Though it was conceded before the   High Court that they were overage at the time of initial appointment,   much would turn as to what is the date of initial appointment. The   High Court had not considered as to what was the applicable rule so   far   as   the   eligibility   regarding   age   is   concerned.   Learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   respondent  State   however   submitted   that  having   made a concession before the High Court that they were overage on   the date of appointment, it is not open to the appellants to take a   different   stand.   The   crucial   question   is   whether   appellants   were   overage on the date of their initial appointment. It is true that there   was concession before the High Court that they were overage on the   date of initial appointment. But there was no concession  that they   were overage at the time of making the application. There was no   definite material before the High Court as to what was the eligibility   criteria so far as age is concerned. No definite material was placed   before the High Court and also before this Court to give a definite   finding on that aspect. What happens when a cut­off date is fixed for   fulfilling the prescribed qualification relating to age by a candidate for   appointment   and   the   effect   of   any   non­prescription   has   been   considered   by  this   Court  in   several   cases.  The   principles   culled   out   from the decisions of this Court (see Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander   Shekhar, Bhupinderpal Singh v. State of Punjab     and Jasbir Rani v.   State of Punjab) are as follows: