Radhey Krishn Agarwal, J. - (1.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Public Service Commission the treat him as not overage and to permit him to appear in interview for the posts of Regional Inspectors (Technical/Assistant Regional Inspectors (Technical).
(2.) The Public Service Commission on 13.9.89 and 6.10.89, issued an advertisement for conducting examination in 1989, for the posts of Regional Inspectors (Technical)/Assistant Regional Inspectors (Technical), According to the said advertisement the minimum age of the candidate should be 21 years and maximum 30 years on 1.7.1989 for candidate of general category and relaxation in maximum age was given for five years in respect of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, backward classes and dependents of freedom fighters etc. Prior to said advertisement the then Chief Minister of U. P., Sri N. D. Tiwari, had made an announcement that person belonging to Saini Caste would be treated as person belonging to backward classes. Petitioner has alleged that in pursuance of the said announcement made by the Chief Minister, the petitioner, who was of Saini Caste, would come under the category of backward classes and, therefore he was entitled to get exemption in age of five years, as his date of birth was 3.12.1957 and on the relevant date that is July 1, 1989, he was below 35 years of age. Accordingly he applied for the said posts and had mentioned himself as a person belonging to backward class. In a separate application, he had mentioned that according to the announcement made by Chief Minister that Saini's would also be a person of backward class, he should be treated as of backward class. The respondent, that is, the Public Service Commission after scrutinising the application of the petitioner allotted roll number to him and permitted him to appear in written test, as well as in practical test on 26.8.90 and 28.9.90, respectively. He was successful in both the tests and, therefore, he was called for interview to be held on 25.11.91. On 25.11.91 petitioner came to the Commission office and produced a certificate indicating that he belonged to backward class but he was informed that he was not entitled for interview as he was overage being more than 30 years of age and he was not entitled for exemption as he did not belong to backward class. The petitioner had tried to convince the respondent, Commission, that he being a person of Saini Caste should be treated as backward class and was entitled for exemption of five years in age. The petitioner was not allowed for interview. It has therefore been alleged in the petition that the said action of the Commission was arbitrary, illegal and was barred by principle of estoppel.
(3.) The respondent, Commission has filed counter-affidavit and has alleged that in the application, the petitioner has mentioned that he being of Saini Caste was going to be included in the list of backward classes and that he would furnish the requisite certificate later on and since he had claimed himself to be of backward class, he was provisionally permitted to appear in written as well as in practical tests and was also called to appear in interview. But he was not allowed in interview as a person of Saini Caste was not added in the list of backyard class as the notification for including person of Saini caste in the list of backward classes was issued on 10.9.91, that is much after the relevant date. The announcement made by the Chief Minister would not have any effect, unless the Government order is issued according to law. In fact such notification was issued on 10.9.91 and, therefore, the petitioner was over age on the relevant date mentioned in the advertisement. The Commission had therefore, rightly not permitted the petitioner to appear in interview. It has also been alleged that the fact that certain posts are lying vacant would not be material as the petitioner was over age.;