- (1.) THIS petition has been preferred seeking a direction requiring the respondents to publish the name of the petitioner in the Select List of candidates and to issue Appointment Letter in his favour as a Trainee Teacher in a Primary School. The petitioner approaches this Court having applied as an O.B.C. candidate in response to an advertisement issued by the U.P. Basic Education Board inviting applications for appointment of Trainee Teachers in various Primary Schools. The petitioner submits that his candidature has been overlooked by the respondents on the ground that he is more than 45 years of age as on 1st July, 2011.
(2.) THE requirements of age as set out in the advertisement, provided that a candidate should be not less than 18 years and not more than 40 years of age on 1st July, 2011. For O.B.C. candidates, the maximum age limit has been further relaxed by five years and resultantly an O.B.C. candidate in terms of the advertisement, should not be more than 45 years as on 1st July, 2011.
(3.) INSOFAR as the petitioner is concerned, the issue itself arises on account of the fact that his date of birth is 1st July, 2011. Sri Kartikeya Saran, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Rule clearly works arbitrarily insofar as the petitioner is concerned and even otherwise he submits that the petitioner as on 1st July, 2011 was not or at least could not be said to have been "more than 45 years of age". According to him, he would complete 45 years on 1st July, 2011 and, therefore, it could not be said that on the relevant date he was "more than" 45 years old. To buttress his submissions he has relied upon the provisions of Article 124 of the Constitution of India and submits that on similar analogy he could be said to be over 45 years of age only on 2nd July, 2011 and not before that. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the contesting respondents has relied upon the famed judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court on this issue rendered in Prabhu Dayal Sesma Vs. State of Rajasthan, 1986 4 SCC 59 to submit that in calculating the petitioner's age, it must be borne in mind that he had attained that age on the day preceding the anniversary of his birth date. According to him, the petitioner had attained the age of 45 years on 30th June, 2011 and on 1st July, 2011, he was more than 45 years of age. He, therefore, submitted that no relief was liable to be granted to the petitioner.;