Shivakant Prasad, J. - (1.) Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 5th October, 2016, passed in W.P. 24416(W) of 2016, the writ petitioner/appellant has preferred this appeal, inter alia, on the grounds that the learned Judge failed to understand that eligibility criteria of a candidate who has qualified in Teacher Eligibility Test (hereinafter referred to as TET) Examination, 2015 shall not be at all required to be verified as in the notification dated 23rd September, 2016, the criteria of age of the candidates for appearing in the interview was mentioned whereas it has been written that the age of the candidates as on 1st January, 2016 for the post of Assistant Teacher (upper primary level) shall be minimum 20 years and maximum 40 years inasmuch as in view of the notification, the writ petitioner/appellant is not coming under the purview of the prescribed age, therefore she moved the writ Court for relaxation of age but learned Judge failed to consider this aspect of the matter whereas the eligibility criteria is not at all required to be verified.
(2.) As per submission of learned counsel for the appellant, the notification dated 23rd September, 2016 vide memo. No. 861/6723/CSSC/ESTT/2016 embodied selection criteria regarding age and the criteria provided in item no. 10 of the said notification cannot be a bar in case of the writ petitioner/appellant. Further the writ petitioner/appellant is entitled to appear in the interview as per notification of 2013 as the age criteria to appear in TET examination, 2013 as embodied in the said notification is minimum 20 years as on 1st January, 2013 (i.e. not born after 01.01.1993) and maximum 40 years as on 1st January, 2013 (i.e. not born before 01.01.1973).
(3.) It is submitted that the writ petitioner's date of birth is 20th December, 1974 and, therefore, she was an eligible candidate and accordingly she appeared in the TET examination, 2015.;