Kotya Bhukya v. The State Of Telangana

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.20180 OF 2019 ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Home for respondents 1 and 3 and Sri M.V. Rama Rao, learned standing counsel for the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board (Board) for respondent No.2. 2.

Pursuant to the Notification in Rc.No.88/Rect/Admn.2018, dated 31.05.2018, issued by the Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board, petitioner applied and participated in the selections. Subsequently, he passed the written examination. At that stage, the eligibility certificates were verified and having found that petitioner was over-aged as per the notification, his candidature was not considered for further selection process. Challenging the same, this Writ Petition is filed. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that having allowed the petitioner to participate in the recruitment and petitioner cleared all the tests conducted by the Board, at this stage, his candidature cannot be rejected on the ground that he is over-aged.

4.

According to learned standing counsel for the Board, paragraph 17 of the notification makes it clear that the eligibility would be verified only after the candidate has finally qualified or at an appropriate time and therefore after the petitioner was qualified in the tests, his eligibility was verified and having found that he was over-aged, he was disqualified.

5.

As per the recruitment notification, the maximum age limit for eligibility is 30 years for open competition with relaxation of five years for Scheduled Tribe category candidates. As petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe category, he is eligible for five years age relaxation. Even after computing additional five years, he crossed the maximum age by granting the age relaxation of five years five months and twenty days as on 1st July, the date to reckon eligibility. Age limit being an essential condition to be eligible, I do not see any error in the decision of the Board in not subjecting the petitioner for further selection process.

6.

Though learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that the petitioner made representation seeking consideration of his candidature, in view of admitted position and that as Board has no power to condone the age limit, no useful purpose would be served in directing the Board to consider the representation. Thus, I am not inclined to grant the relief as sought for by the learned counsel for petitioner.

7.

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ P. NAVEEN RAO, J Date:18.09.2019 KH