By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the selection process of the post of Signaler Grade-2 in irrigation department, Pratapgarh and also to direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the appointment on the post of Signaler Grade -2 against the existing vacancies.
Brief facts of the case are that the an advertisement dated 29.10.2004 has been published in the daily newspaper and the petitioner having requisite qualifications has applied for the post of Signaler Grade 2. The petitioner was called for the interview but when the petitioner went to the office of respondent no.4 on 25.10.2005, he came to know through the notice affixed on the notice board that the test and interview has been postponed. When the department has not given any information, the petitioner moved an application under Right to Information Act for getting the information regarding the selection of Signaler Grade -2 test and exam which was postponed by order dated 26.07.2005. The petitioner anyhow came to know that four persons have been selected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present petition.
With this backdrop, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the selection was made without following the due process of law and, therefore, the entire selection is illegal and deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel has also been submitted that despite the repeated approach made by the petitioner, the information regarding the appointment has not been given by the department. It has also been submitted that the act of the respondents appointing the outsiders without test and interview is arbitrary, illegal, which is not permissible in the eyes of law and the selection process is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, learned counsel for the State has vehemently opposed the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the selected candidates have not been made as a party in the writ petition, therefore, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. Learned State counsel has submitted that in pursuance to advertisement dated 29.10.2004, no selection was made. It has been submitted that another advertisement was issued on 01.12.2008 and the petitioner has submitted his application on 18.12.2008 without any objection in which the date of birth was mentioned as 21.06.1973, however, in the aforesaid advertisement, the candidate should have to attain the age of 18 years on 01.07.2008 and not more than 35 years, but the petitioner was more than the age prescribed, therefore, he was not called for the test and interview and the candidates who were within the zone of eligibility to participate in the test/interview were called and after qualifying the test and interview were appointed.
Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner has not come with clean hands and has concealed the fact of submission of application in pursuance to advertisement dated 01.12.2008 and on the basis of incorrect and misleading fact, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
After considering the rival submissions of the parties, I am of the view that the petitioner has earlier applied for the post of Signaler Grade-2 in pursuance to advertisement issued on 29.10.2004, but no selection was made. The petitioner has again applied for the post in question in pursuance to advertisement dated 01.12.2008 without any objection and as per the documents, which are annexed, the petitioner has become over age. The age limit prescribed as per the advertisement is that the candidate should have to attain the age of 18 years on 01.07.2008 but not more than 35 years. Thus, he was not called for the interview and test.
It is a settled principle of law that the scope of appointments and selection is limited. The decision of the Selection Committee can be interfered on the limited grounds such as illegality or patent material irregularity in the constitution of the Selection Committee, the procedure adopted by the Selection Committee, vitiating the selection or the proved malafide affecting the selection process.
In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to show that there was any discrepancy in the selection process and the consequent result. The petitioner has applied but his application was not considered on the ground that he became over age as per the advertisement. No defect or irregularities have been pointed out in the said selection process.
Thus, in the light of aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 VNP/-