Jharkhand High Court: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J., heard the instant petition whereby the petitioner had requested for quashing the order dated 05-12-2018 by which the candidature of the petitioner had been rejected.
Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) had published an advertisement inviting applications for appointment on the post of Graduate Trained Teacher under Combined Graduate Trained Teacher Competitive Exam, 2016. As per the advertisement, the cut-off date of age was 01-01-2016 on which the minimum age required was 21 years and maximum age for Extremely Backward Class (List-I) and Backward Class (List-2) was set at 42 years. The petitioner appeared and was declared successful in the counselling. The documents of the petitioner was examined and while calculating the age of the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner had already crossed 42 years of age. Consequently, the candidature of the petitioner had been rejected. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner had approached the Court by way of a writ petition.
Grievance of the petitioner was that he had completed 41 years 11 months and 30 days of age on 31-12-2015 and on 01-01-2016; the petitioner was 42nd years of age. The petitioner submitted that his date of birth was 01-01-1974 and in the light of age calculator on the website of JSSC, the petitioner was found 42 years on 01-01-2016. thus, his candidature was arbitrarily rejected.
Whereas, the respondent argued that petitioner’s age had been rightly calculated. It was submitted that so far the age calculator on the website of JSSC was concerned that was erroneous and was not required to be relied as the same was not a part of the advertisement and the said calculator had been removed from the website of JSSC. The Respondent relied on the case of Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia v. Dhiraj Prasad Sahu reported in 2020 (1) JBCJ (HC), wherein it had been held that,
“As already stated, a legal day commences at 12 o’clock midnight and continues until the same hour the following night. It would therefore appear that the appellant having been born on January 2, 1956, he had not only attained the age of 28 years but also completed the same at 12 o’clock on the midnight of January 1, 1984.On the next day i.e. on January 2, 1984, the appellant would be one day more than 28 years.”
The Bench, after going through the materials available on record observed that, in the advertisement, it had been clearly stated that maximum age for Extremely Backward Class (List-I) and Backward Class (List-2) was 42 years. The petitioner belonged to this Class. The cut-off date was fixed for calculating the age as on 01-01-2016. The date of birth of the petitioner was 01-01-1974. Hence, the Bench opined,
“On calculation of date of birth of petitioner, it transpires that the petitioner has completed 42 years of age on 31-12-2015. It is well-settled precedent that if a person born on 1stof a month is said to complete on entire year in terms of age on the last date of the previous month of next year.”
Hence, it was held that, in the advertisement, it had been substantiated in the cleat terms that maximum age was 42 years and that the petitioner had already completed 42 years on 31-12-2015. He had entered in 43rd years on 01-01-2016. Therefore, the Bench refused to deviate from the advertisement. The instant petition was dismissed holding that the age of petitioner had been rightly calculated and as such no relief could be extended to the petitioner.[Ajay Kumar Mandal v. State of Jharkhand, 2021 SCC OnLine Jhar 280, decided on 08-03-2021]
Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
Appearance before the Court by:
For the Petitioner: Adv. Deepak Kumar Bharati,
For the Respondents-State: G.A. I Ashok Kumar Yadav,
For the Respondent-JSSC: Adv. Sanjay Piprawall