Sabina, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the appointment of respondent No. 3 as Armed Guard.
(2.) CASE of the petitioner, in brief, is that respondent No. 2 had invited applications for appointment of Armed Guards through Sainik Welfare Department. Petitioner submitted his application (Annexure P -1) and appeared in the interview on 28.12.2011 before the selection committee. Petitioner cleared the physical test. However, petitioner did not receive any appointment letter, whereas, five persons including respondent No. 3 were selected as Armed Guards. Hence, the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was 44 years and 4 months old on the relevant date and was liable to be appointed as Armed Guard. As per Annexure P -10, maximum age limit, to all relaxations combined, should not exceed 45 years unless it is so provided in the Government directive. As per Annexure P -11, minimum age had been provided as 18 years, whereas, maximum age had been provided as 45 years. Therefore, petitioner, who was fully eligible for the post of Armed Guard, was liable to be appointed for the said post being more meritorious than respondent No. 3.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent -bank, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner was over age and therefore, could not be appointed as Armed Guard. In this regard, learned counsel has placed reliance on the proviso in Annexure P -10, whereby it had been provided that maximum age limit of all relaxations combined should not exceed 45 years.;