ASHIFALI J SAIYED Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Short facts of the case appear to be that advertisement was issued by the District Judge, Panchmahal for filling up of the posts of English Stenographer and Section Writer. The petitioner applied for the post of Section Writer. The pertinent aspect is that as per the advertisement, the minimum age as on 01. 03. 1986 for each candidate was not less than 18 years and not exceeding 28 years. The selection process was undertaken. However, as per the respondents, through oversight as the birth-date of the petitioner was not mentioned in the application, it was not examined minutely. The petitioner was, thereafter, vide order dated 17. 08. 1991 was appointed on the post. However, immediately after few days upon further scrutiny, it was found that the birth-date of the petitioner is 26. 02. 1969 and therefore on qualifying date i. e. on 01. 03. 1986 the petitioner was less than 18 years of age and as the mistake came to knowledge of the administration, vide impugned order dated 13. 09. 1991, the petitioner was relieved from service. It is under these circumstances, the present petition before this Court.

(2.) HEARD Mr. Samir Gohil for Mr. Supehia for the petitioner and Mr. Pardiwala for the respondents.

(3.) IT is an admitted position that the advertisement provides for minimum age of 18 years as on 01. 03. 1986 for making the candidate eligible for the post. The School Leaving Certificate produced by the petitioner himself at Annexure - C shows that the birth-date of the petitioner is 26. 02. 1969 and on the said aspect there is no dispute. Under these circumstances, it appears to be an admitted position that the petitioner was not of the age of 18 years on the date as on 01. 03. 1986 and inspite of the same, it appears that by mistake the appointment came to be granted to the petitioner. Such mistake was corrected by issuing the impugned order by the respondents. If the petitioner was not fulfilling the minimum age for entry to the service, the action for relieving the petitioner, as such, cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable.