Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 18179 of 2019
Petitioner :- Sarba Shukla
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Srivastava,Archana Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.N. Singh
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard Sri Arvind Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Niseeth Yadav, learned counsel appears for the U.P. Public Service Commission, Prayagraj/second respondent.
Petitioner who is one of aspirants for the U.P. P.C.S. Examination 2019 and belongs to General category, is before this Court with a request to issue a mandamus directing the respondents to provide age relaxation upto 5 years to the women candidate including the petitioner for appearing in the U.P. Public Service Commission Examination 2019 in the interest of justice.
At the very outset, Sri Yadav has placed the order dated 21.5.2019 passed by this Court in Writ A No. 5595 of 2019 (Saurabh Rai Vs. Principal Secretary Law/Department of Personnel And 2 Others) whereby the age relaxation has been asked for. While considering the matter, the Court has also relied upon the Division Bench decision rendered in Vibhuti Narain Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2015 LawSuit(All) 1403 to hold that the petitioner cannot claim as the matter of right to accord age relaxation. The matter is between the Governor and the Commission. The Court should restrain itself in directing the authority concerned to take a call on such aspect of the matter merely on asking of a candidate/candidates who are over age. The reliance has also been placed upon decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Sri Prakash Srivastava and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others (Writ A No. 65848 of 2010, dt. 25.10.2013) to contend that since the power has been conferred upon the Governor to relax, notwithstanding anything provided in any other rule, it is incumbent upon the Governor, in the circumstances to consider the case of the petitioner for age relaxation. In this backdrop, Sri Yadav submits that the controversy in the present matter is squarely with the judgment of Division Bench in Vibhuti Narain Singh(supra).
In this backdrop, the Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and judgments of this Court so relied upon by learned counsel for the Commission and finds that the argument so advanced by Sri Niseeth Yadav, definitely has force. Moreso, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show the public interest to relax the age insofar it relates to the petitioner.
The writ petition being devoid of merits, is accordingly
dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.11.2019 A.K.Srivastava