Anita v. State Of Haryana And ORS.

2024:PHHC:013859 CWP-7574-1999 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-7574-1999 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.02.2024 Anita

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and others ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present:- None for the petitioner Mr. Rohit Arya, DAG, Haryana *** TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed, inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the order/letter dated 11.03.1999, Annexure P-7, whereby the petitioner's candidature for the post of Lecturer Sanskrit (Female) under advertisement no.6 of 1997 was rejected.

2.

A perusal of impugned letter, dated 11.03.1999, shows that the petitioner's application for the post of Sanskrit Lecturer, School Cadre, was rejected on four counts, non-fulfilment of requisite qualification, being overage, the application form being signed, and no fee having been deposited. 3.

Learned State counsel contends that the entire petition has been filed with the averments that the petitioner's candidature has been wrongly rejected being overage, whereas that is only one of the grounds of rejection. PAYAL 2024.02.02 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

2024:PHHC:013859 CWP-7574-1999 (O&M) -2There is no averment, nor any material has been placed on record to show as to how rejection of her candidature on other counts was wrong. 4.

He further contends that recruitment for the post in question was regulated by the Haryana State Education (School and Inspection Cadre) (Group B) Service Rules, 1998, wherein maximum age limit for candidates to be eligible for the post has been prescribed as thirty-five years. There is no provision for relaxation of this age limit. Undisputedly, the petitioner was more than thirty-five years of age on the cut-off date, 21.01.1998. Therefore, her candidature was rightly rejected.

5.

The stand of the respondents has not been controverted by filing any counter affidavit. Besides, as on date the petitioner would even have crossed the age of superannuation for the post in question. Therefore, no cause survives to her.

6.

Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

7.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 01.02.2024 Payal Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PAYAL 2024.02.02 14:29 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment