- (1.) DEVI Prasad Singh, J. This writ petition has been preferred under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order dated 29. 11. 1995, passed by the Superintendent, Central Jail, Bareilly, by which the petitioner's candidature for appointment on the post of temporary Bandi Rakshak (Warder) has been rejected in spite of the fact that the petitioner was selected for the said post and his name finds place in the select list.
(2.) THE brief matrix of the case is that the Superintendent, Central Jail, had notified vacancies on 7. 9. 1995 inviting applications for appointment on the post of Jail Warder. THE last date for receipt of the application was 20. 9. 1995. According to the advertisement, the candidate must have attained the age of 18 years on 1. 7. 1995 and should not have exceeded 35 years of age on the said date. THE other qualification provided by the advertisement was High School or equivalent thereto. THE proforma of application form was also provided, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The petitioner had moved an application for appointment on the post of Jail Warder indicating his date of birth as provided in the High School certificate, i. e. 2. 7. 1977. The petitioner claims that he had completed the age of 18 years on 1. 7. 1995 as his date of birth is July 2, 1977. A select list was released, in which the petitioner's name finds place. However, at later stage, by the impugned order dated 29. 11. 1995, the petitioner's candidature was rejected on the ground that he had not completed the age of 18 years on 1. 7. 1995. Feeling aggrieved with the order under challenge, the petitioner has approached this Court. The short question involved in the present writ petition is that whether the petitioner had completed the age of 18 years on 1. 7. 1995, keeping in view the fact that his date of birth is 2. 7. 1977. It has not been disputed by the learned Standing Counsel that it was incumbent on the part of the petitioner to complete 18 years of age on 1. 7. 1995 which is condition precedent to make a candidate eligible to seek appoint ment on the post of Jail Warder.
(3.) WHILE assailing the order under challenge, the petitioner's Counsel proceeded to submit that on 1. 7. 1995, the petitioner had completed the age of 18 years. He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in (1986) 4 SCC 59, Prabhu Dayal Sesma v. State of Rajasthan and another and proceeded to submit that in view of the law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner shall be deemed to have completed the age of 18 years on 1. 7. 1995. It has been further submitted that the completion of 18 years of age is to be calculated after considering whole of the day up to 12o'clock in the mid-night. On the question whether after lapse of almost 12 years, the impugned order should be quashed and the respondents may be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Jail Warder, the petitioner's Counsel submits that on account of the pendency of the present writ petition in this Court, the petitioner should not be allowed to suffer as no act of the Court should harm a litigant and it is the bounden duty of the Court to see that a person is not harmed by the procedural error of the Court. While giving weight of his arguments, the petitioner's Counsel further submitted that the delay has been caused in disposal of the writ petition not because of his fault; rather owing to the prevailing system in the administration of justice.;