Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

DINESH CHANDRA versus STATE OF U.P. THRU. SEC. HOME AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Dinesh Chandra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Sec. Home And Others - WRIT - A No. 53674 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 16866 (26 September 2006)

 

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).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53674 of 2006

Dinesh Chandra

Vs.

State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Petitioner applied for consideration of his candidature as Constable in Civil Police. Date of birth of the petitioner as per High School Certificate, is 01.07.1988. As per advertisement eligibility criteria has been provided for and it has been mentioned that on 01.07.2006 candidate should not be less 18 years of age and maximum age is 20 years and it has also been categorically mentioned therein that date of birth of an incumbent should not be after 30.06.1988 and before 01.07.2006. Candidature of the petitioner has been non-suited on the ground that he is not of 18 years of age on the relevant date.

Counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that he is 18 years of age on the relevant date and his candidature cannot be non-suited on that ground.

Learned Standing counsel on the other hand contended that petitioner does not fulfill eligibility criteria as such his candidature has been rightly cancelled.

After respective arguments have been advanced, eligibility criteria provided for has been perused and as per eligibility criteria  as on 01.07.2006 minimum age of each incumbent should not be less than 18 years of age and it has also been  clarified that date of birth of incumbent should be before 01.07.2006, and should not be after 30.06.1998. Petitioner's date of birth is 01.07.1988, and same is clearly after 30.06.1988. In terms of advertisement as on 01.07.2006 petitioner having been born on 01.07.1988 cannot be said to be of minimum eighteen years  of age. Petitioner is clearly outside the zone of consideration.  

Consequently writ petition lacks substance and is dismissed.

26.09.2006

Dhruv  


Copyright

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

Advertisement

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 |

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