U O I And Anr vs C A T Jaipur And Ors on 13 August, 2012
We find that decisions in Mahaveer Prasad Meena Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra), Prakash Chand & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), Dalveer Singh & Anr. Vs. State (Revenue) & Anr. (supra) and State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Santosh Kumar Mishra & Anr. (supra) are clearly attracted to the facts of the instant case. We find the order passed by the Tribunal to be in accordance with law. When earlier notification and examination held was cancelled, the applicant who is departmental candidate and appeared in the examination could not have been put to disadvantage. Subsequently, the applicant was found ineligible on the ground that he has crossed the maximum age limit. The applicant could not be denied opportunity to participate in departmental examination merely on the ground of merger of some other cadres. Age relaxation of two years was not enough in the case of applicant. Applicant had been unjustly deprived of promotion to the post of J.En. Gr.II for which he was eligible when the notification was issued in 2008. Thus, he could not have been held ineligible at the time the subsequent notification was issued after merger of cadres. It is not in dispute that passing of departmental examination is necessary for promotion to the post of J.En. Gr.II. Applicant could not have been denied opportunity of staking the claim in unreasonable manner. We find that substantial justice has been done by the Tribunal.