- (1.) M. Katju, J. This writ petition has been filed against the order, dated 24-11-1993. Annexure 6 to the writ petition.
(2.) WE have heard Shri R. P. Dubey, learned counsel for the peti tioner and Shri V. M. Sahai for respondents and find no merit in this writ petition. The petitioner claims to be an Ex-army serviceman and it is alleged in para 4 of the writ petition that ho joined the Indian Navy on 7-9-1974 and was discharged on 26-9-1976 on medical ground. The petitioner applied against advertisement published on 1-2-1991, Annexure 1 to the writ petition for Combined State Upper Subordinate Services Examination 1991 conducted by U. P. Public Service Commission. While applying the petitioner also sub mitted the certificate regarding ex-servicemen from Ministry of Defence Government of India and also the service discharge certificate from Navy vide Annexure 3 to the writ petition. He was allotted a roll number and appeared in the preliminary examination and succeeded in the same for appearing in the main examination. He was issued admit card for appearing in the main exa mination and he was allowed to appear in the same but subsequently when the result of the main examination was declared the petitioner's result was withheld. When he approached the respondent he was informed that he did not come in the category of ex-servicemen on the ground that he was discharg ed due to medical reason vide Annexure 6. Thereafter the petitioner made a representation on 24-12-1993 requesting that he should be treated as an ox-servicemen and be issued an interview letter vide Annexure 7 to the writ peti tion. The petitioner submitted another representation on 15-12-1992 vide Annexure 8 to the writ petition. When no head was paid by the respondents the petitioner filed this writ petition. A counter affidavit has been Sled in which it was stated that the petitioner did not complete five years defence service and hence he was ineli gible vide paras 3 and 4 of the counter affidavit. la para S of the counter affidavit it is stated that on 1-7-1991 the petitioner was 33 years, three months and 15 days of age and hence was over-age.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the only ground given for declaring the petitioner ineligible was that he had been medically discharged from the Navy. We are of the opinion that an order can be up held for a reason other than what is mentioned in the said order. If for example a person is ineligible for service for a certain reason then even if he has been declared ineligible for some other reason when the matter comes before us we can uphold the order and declare him ineligible for the first reason even though that reason may not have been stated in the said order. Since the petitioner was clearly over-age and did not complete five years defence service he was not eligible. Thus there is no force in this petition. The writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;