- (1.) The Appellant, who was selected for the post of Shiksha Mitra, had come before this Court praying for quashing of the order dated 7.5.2010, whereby the District Magistrate, Hamirpur has set aside the selection of the Appellant for the post of Shiksha Mitra in the institution in question.
(2.) Sri L.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the District Magistrate and the learned Single Judge, who has dismissed the writ petition, both fell in error inasmuch as Respondent No. 4-Amit Kumfar was under age keeping in view the year of recruitment/selection for which the selections were to be held. He submits that the vacancy came into existence on 31.1.2006 and, therefore, the year of recruitment/selection as defined under the relevant Government Order governing such appointment would be the 1st July, 2006, on which date Respondent No. 4-Amit Kumar was admittedly less than 18 years of age.
(3.) Learned Counsel for Respondent No. 4 Mr. Gupta submits that the date of birth of Respondent No. 4 is 2.3.1989 and the selection was held pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.6.2007, for the session 2007-08 and on that date, Respondent No. 4 was above 18 years of age according to his date of birth. He contends that on 23.2007, Respondent No. 4 had already completed 18 years of age and the advertisement was made thereafter, hence it cannot be said that the claim of Respondent No. 4 was illegal. Accordingly, the District Magistrate and the learned Single Judge have arrived at the correct conclusions.;