VERMA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner had applied in pursuance of the advertisement, in the months of September/october, 1995, whereby the applications were invited from eligible candidates for appointment to the post of mahila Paryavekshak. THE maximum age was prescribed as 40 years on the last date of application. THE date of birth of the petitioner is 14. 8. 56, she was below 40 years of age at the time of filing of the application. She was interviewed on 26. 12. 95 and was selected. Even police verification of antecedents were made. Despite the petitioner having been placed on merits and selected, she was not issued appointment letter. She continued making representations. Later on she came to know that the appointment was not offered to her for the reason that on the date of appointment she was of the age of 42 years.
(2.) IN reply to the writ petition it is admitted that the petitioner had become over age at the time of appointment, therefore, she could not be given appointment. It is also admitted that the Director, Woman & Child development department had issued the letter dt. 30. 12. 96 for appointment of the petitioner to the post of Mahila Paryavekshak as per the rules. It is also admitted that police verification was properly done. The only question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner should have been of the age of 40 years when the applications were invited as per advertisement, copy of which has been attached, and if the appointment is delayed whether the date of birth is to be take on the date of after of appointment letter. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the judgment in case of Narayan Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (1), wherein it was held as under:- "4. The question that arises for consideration is as to whether appointment could be coldly refused to the petitioner on the ground that he had become over age. It may be stated that appointments were given out of the select list and in that list, Anx. 1, the petitioner's name stands at Sl. No. 1. Admittedly, when the applications were invited, he was eligible, fulfilling the requisite age limit. When appointments were to be given against the sanctioned permanent posts then out of select list, the petitioner's candidature could not be rejected on the ground that he has become over age. The petitioner was a regularly selected candidate. It was a substantive appointment against a temporary post. The petitioner would be entitled to get himself substantively appointed against the permanent post as and when the same is created and his services could not have been terminated. " After hearing counsel for the petitioner, I accept the contention of the petitioner that the maximum or minimum age of the candidate is to be seen when the applications are invited as per advertisement i. e. on the last date of application as prescribed in the Rules. If by some reasons, the actual appointment is offered after a delayed period and in the meantime the candidate becomes over age, no fault can be put on petitioner in this regard. The age of the candidate is to be considered on the last date of the application as per advertisement. For the reasons and discussions made above, the writ petition is allowed, the respondents are directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Mahila Paryavekshak in the quota of the year 1995, when she was interviewed and selected and was in merit. The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits as well.
(3.) WITH the above observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. .;