AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. Vishwajeet Singh, learned counsel, accept notice on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and 4, respectively.
Petitioner’s case is that she participated in the selection process undertaken by respondent No.2-Himachal Pradesh Rajya Chayan Aayog for filling up the post of Teacher (Sociology) in terms of the advertisement dated 16.04.2026. The petitioner participated in different stages of the selection process and qualified the same, but her name did not find place in the list of selected candidates published by respondent No.2 on 07.09.2026. Upon making an inquiry, the petitioner was apprised that since she was overage, her candidature was not considered for selection and was accordingly rejected.
Petitioner’s case is that she participated in the selection process as a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste category. Her grievance is that two candidates belonging to the Other Backward Class category, appearing at serial Nos. 85 and 107 of the selection list, are older to her, with their dates of birth being 31.05.1980 and 26.02.1980, respectively. Despite this, the aforesaid candidates were selected, whereas the petitioner, with date of birth as 13.09.1980, & younger than the aforesaid candidates, was left out from the purview of selection.
When the matter was taken up in the morning session, learned counsel for respondent No.2 sought time to obtain instructions in the matter in view of factual assertions of the petitioner.
Instructions have now come forth. In terms of the instructions: - The existence of the discrepancy pointed out by the petitioner is a matter of record; On verification, the candidatures of both the candidates pointed out by the petitioner were found liable to be turned down on account of their having exceeded the prescribed age limit; Accordingly, the candidatures of such candidates have been declared ineligible, and the erroneous recommendations have been rectified. The relevant portion of the instructions is reproduced hereinafter: -
“It is submitted that two candidates bearing Roll Nos. 26029000111 (Sh. Manmohan Singh) and 26029000125 (Sh. Sanjeev Kumar), having dates of birth: 26.02.1980 and 31.05.1980, respectively, were called for Document Verification held on 24.08.2025 However, due to the rush of work and an inadvertent error, their age eligibility was not noticed at the time of Document Verification and they were erroneously treated as eligible and recommended for appointment. In fact, both the aforesaid candidates had already crossed the prescribed upper age limit of 45 years as on 01.01.2026.
Upon the said discrepancy coming to the notice of the Aayog, the matter was reviewed and the candidature of both the aforesaid candidates was re-examined. On verification, both candidates were found ineligible on account of having exceeded the prescribed upper age limit and, accordingly, their candidature has been declared ineligible and the erroneous recommendations have been rectified.
It is further submitted that the petitioner's date of birth is 13.09.1980. Thus, the petitioner had also crossed the prescribed upper age limit of 45 years as on 01.01.2026 and, therefore, did not fulfill the age eligibility criteria prescribed in Advertisement No. 09/2026 dated 16.04.2026 for the post of Teacher (Sociology), Post Code-26029. Consequently, her candidature was not considered for recommendation for appointment.
In view of the aforesaid facts, it is respectfully submitted that the cases of the aforesaid two candidates cannot constitute a basis for extending similar consideration to the petitioner, as their consideration/recommendation was the result of an inadvertent error, which was subsequently detected and rectified by the Aayog. The petitioner, therefore, cannot claim parity with an erroneous recommendation which has itself been withdrawn upon verification of the prescribed eligibility criteria.”
In view of the above office instructions, the grievance of the petitioner does not survive, since the respondents have carried out the necessary rectification. Accordingly, the writ petition to stand disposed of. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.