Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Rajvir Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. - 45924 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 15820 (20 September 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45924 of 2007

Rajvir Singh versus State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the Standing counsel for the respondents and perused the record.

An advertisement was published in ''Vividh Rozgar Darshan' on 30.7.2007 for filling up the vacancies with regard to the post of Telegraphic Peon/Mate. The age of the candidates provided in the aforesaid advertisement was between 18 to 32 years.

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has already worked in the department for about 8 months and further that by Government Order dated 21st January, 2000 the Governor of Uttar Pradesh in exercise of his power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India has been pleased to enhance the maximum age limit for recruitment on the post of Class IV from 32 to 35 years.

The G.O. dated 21st January, 2000 is as under:-

18% egRoiw.kZ 'kklukns'k



mRrj izns'k ljdkj 18@2@81&dk&2@2000 rn~fnukad y[ku?? fnukad%21 tuojh] 2000

dkfeZd vuqHkkx vf/klwpuk

lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 309 ds ijUrqd ds v/khu 'kfDr dk iz;ksx djds jkt;iky mRrj izns'k lsokvksa esa HkrhZ ??vk;q lhek?? fu;ekoyh] 1972 esa la'kksa/ku djus ds fy;s fuEufyf[kr fu;ekoyh cukrs gSaA

mRrj izns'k lsokvksa esa HkrhZ ??vk;q lhek ?? ??uoka la'kks/ku?? fu;ekoyh] 2000

laf{kIr uke ??1?? ;g fu;ekoyh mRrj izns'k lsokvksa esa HkrhZ ??vk;q lhek?? ??uoka la'kks/ku vkSj izkjEHk fu;ekoyh??] 2000 dgh tk;sxhA

??2?? ;g rqjUr izo`Rr gksxhA

fu;e 2 dk mRrj izns'k lsokvksa esa HkrhZ ??vk;q lhek?? fu;ekoyh] 1972 esa] uhps LrEHk la'kks/ku 1 es fn, x;s orZeku fu;e 2 ds ij LrEHk &2 esa fn;k x;k fu;e j[k

fn;k tk;sxk]


LrEHk&1 LrEGk&2

orZeku fu;e ,rn~}kjk izfrLFkkfir fu;e


vf/kdre 2& jkT;iky ds fu;e cukus dh 2& jkT;iky ds fu;e cukus dh

vk;q lhek 'kfDr ds v/khu ,slh leLr 'kfDr ds v/khu ,slh leLr

lsokvksa esa vkSj inksa ij HkrhZ ds lsokvksa esa vkSj inksa ij HkrhZ ds

lEcU/k esa ftuds fy;s vf/kdre lEcU/k esa ftuds fy, vf/kdre

vk;q lhek cRrhl o"kZ gksxhA vk;q lhek cRrhl o"kZ gS vf/kd

re vk;q lhek iSarhl o"kZ gksxhA


ijUrq tgka mRrj izns'k lsokvksa esa HkrhZ ??vk;qlhek?? ??vkBoka la'kks/ku?? fu;ekoyh] 1991 ds izkjEHk gksus ds iwoZ foKkiu fd;k tk pqdk gS] ogka vf/kdre vk;q lhek ogh gksxh tks mDr fu;ekoyh ds izkjEHk gksus ds iwoZ fon~;eku jgh gksA


dkfeZd vuqHkkx&2 22@15@86&dk&2@95 y[ku??% fnukad 18 Qjojh] 1995

fo"k;% leLr foHkkxksa esa fu;qfDr gsrq f[kykfM+;ksa dks 'kkjhfjd ;ksX;rk esa NwV fn;k tkukA

mijksDr lnHkZ esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd lHkh yksd lsokvksa@inksa ij HkrhZ ds fy;s 'kkjhfjd ;ksX;rk dk fu/kkZj.k laxr lsok fu;ekoyh ;k iz'kklfud vkns'kksa esa fd;k tkrk gSA

2- 'kklu }kjk ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd leLr foHkkxksa esa HkrhZ gsrq f[kykfM+;ksa dks 'kkjhfjd ;ksX;rk] ;fn fu/kkZfjr gks] esa NwV nsus gsrq lgkuqHkwfriwoZd fopkj fd;k tk;A mDr fu.kZ; ds fdz;kUo;u gsrq laxr lsok fu;ekoyh esa rnuqlkj la'kks/ku fd;k tkuk vko';d gS] rkfd fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh }kjk lacaf/kr in ij HkrhZ ds le; bl izdkj dh NwV nsrs gq, HkrhZ dh izfdz;k iw.kZ djkbZ tk ldsA

3- d`I;k mijksDrkuqlkj leqfpr dk;Zokgh llqfuf'pr djus dk d"V djsaA

vkj-ch-Hkk"dj] lfpoA**

It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has worked in the department for about 8 months, he may be given relaxation in age in view of the aforesaid G.O.

It appears that the age of the petitioner at present is about 40 years. Even if he is granted relaxation in age for the period of 8 months of work which he has put in the service of the department he would not be entitled to apply for the said post under the aforesaid advertisement.

In so far as the G.O. dated 21st January, 2000 is concerned, it provides maximum age limits 35 years for application by the candidates for appointment i.e. authority could have fixed the maximum age up to 32 years earlier and up to 35 years now for considering applications from the eligible candidates. A perusal of the impugned advertisement shows that the applications were invited from the candidates between 18 to 32 years of age, which is well within 35 years of age. The maximum age limit of 35 years is provided in the aforesaid G.O. and is not contrary to it.

There is no illegality or infirmity in the advertisement impugned in the writ petition.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed.

Dated 20.9.2007



Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.