Madhya Pradesh High Court
WA/1306/2020 of DAVID JAIN Vs SWASTHAY SEVA NIDESHALAY DWARA PRAMUKH SACHIV on 31 December 2020
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH WA No.1306/2020 David Jain
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHWA No.1306/2020 David Jain Vs. State of MP & Ors.
Indore, Dated: 31.12.2020
Ms.Manjula Mukati, learned counsel for appellant.
Ms.Archana Kher, learned counsel for respondents.
Heard through video conferencing.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
:- As per Prakash Shrivastava,J
The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 11/12/2020 whereby WP No.18706/2020 filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
The appellant had approached the Writ Court by filing the petition with the plea that he is having the qualification of Dental Hygienist and that the notice dated 10/10/2020 was issued by the respondent No.3 inviting application for selection to various posts in different departments including the post of Dental Hygienist. The appellant had applied in pursuance to the said notice, but his application was rejected on the ground that on the cut off date the appellant was aged 40 years six months 21 days, therefore, he was age bar being ineligible to participate in the selection process. Accordingly in the writ petition the appellant had challenged the conditions of the notice inviting the application in respect of age limit.
Learned Single Judge after appreciating the entire matter has found that the appellant has crossed the maximum aged prescribed in the Recruitment Rules and he
2
has not challenged the validity of the Rules, therefore, he is not entitled for any relief.
Learned counsel for appellant submits that since the vacancy had arisen in the year 2018, therefore, the appellant’s age at that stage should have been considered.
Having examined the matter, we have found that the recruitment is governed by the Madhya Pradesh Kanisht Seva (Samyukta Arhata) Pareeksha Niyam, 2013. The said Rules in clear terms provide that the cut off date for calculating the age is 01[st] of January, 2020. In the Rules, the maximum age limit of 40 years has been prescribed. Undisputedly the appellant had crossed the prescribed age of 40 years on the cut off date, therefore, no error has been committed by the concerned respondents in rejecting the appellant’s candidature on the ground of being over aged. The vires of the Rules are not under challenge. Even otherwise, counsel for appellant has failed to point out any cogent material to show that the prescription of the cut off date or the maximum age for recruitment is arbitrary or discriminatory in any manner. Hence, we are of the opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any error in dismissing the writ petition.
The appeal is found to be devoid of any merit which is accordingly dismissed.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge
(Rohit Arya) Judge
vm