MUKESHKUMAR MAGANLAL PATEL Vs. DIRECTOR OF PRIMARY EDUCATION GUJARAT STATE
LAWS(GJH)-1988-10-1
HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
Decided on October 19,1988

MUKESHKUMAR MAGANLAL PATEL Appellant
VERSUS
DIRECTOR OF PRIMARY EDUCATION,GUJARAT STATE Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

YOGENDRAKUMAR RATILAL RAVAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1993-3-20] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY P PATEL VS. DISTRICT PRIMARY EDUCATION OFFICER [LAWS(GJH)-1997-1-78] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

A.P.RAVANI - (1.)Rule. Mr. R. P. Solanki waives service of rule on behalf of the respondents.
(2.)The petitioners applied for the post of Primary School Teacher pursuant to an advertisement dated 9/12/1987 which has been produced at annexure A to the petition. The petitioners have been excluded from interview on the ground that they are not eligible as they have not completed 18 years of ago on the relevant date. Rule 4 of the Gujarat Panchayat Service (Recruitment of Primary Teachers) Rules 1970 prescribes the eligibility criteria which inter alia provide that to be eligible for appointment a candidate must not be less than 18 years and not mote than 28 years of age. Explanation to the aforesaid Rule reads as follows:
" Explanation: for the purpose of this rule a candidate shall be deemed to have attained the ago limit if he attains such aRe limit before the first July of the year in which the recruitment is made"
The learned Counsel for the respondents states that the term year in explanation should be read as school year which has been defined as the period commencing from 1st June and ending on 31st May. Even if the contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is taken as legal and valid it is an admitted position that the recruitment process was started after 31/05/1988. Therefore the recruitment year should be the year 1988. Hence the age of the candidates concerned as on 1/07/1988 will have to be taken into consideration and not on 1/07/1987. If the petitioners age is considered as on 1/07/1988 all the petitioners would be eligible as far as the criterion regarding age is concerned. On this point there is no dispute. It is also not in dispute that only on the ground of aforesaid alleged ineligibility all the petitioners have not been called for interview. However in above view of the matter the respondents stand cannot be upheld and the petitioners should be called for interview as they have completed 18 years of age on 1/07/1988
(3.)In the result the petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the petitioners immediately as eligible and call them for interview and if they succeed they may be placed at appropriate rank in the select list that may be prepared pursuant to the interview provided however if they are otherwise eligible. Rule made absolute accordingly. Rule made absolute.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.