1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4610/2002. : : Mittar Singh Vs. Union of India & Anr. : : Date of Order 20.11.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.Karnapal Singh for the petitioner. None present for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed with the prayer that respondents be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Mazdoor. Shri Karnapal Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner on his application was selected for appointment on the post of Mazdoor by Commandant, Ammunition Depot, Bharatpur. Inspite of that, respondents did not grant him appointment. The petitioner submitted all his testimonials, transfer certificate and educational certificates. The respondents verified the same and stated that appointment shall be given to him after scrutiny of the same. But appointment have not been given 2 till date. Learned counsel submitted that petitioner is fully eligible for appointment. The respondents in reply to the writ petition stated that even according to the transfer certificate produced by the petitioner, his date of birth was 7.7.1984 and according to this age of the petitioner was 17 years 8 months and 21 days, when he applied for appointment. The petitioner has wrongly mentioned his date of birth i.e. 18 years 8 months and 21 days as on 30.3.2002 and obviously he has indicated a wrong date of birth. Reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents in November, 2002. Learned counsel for the petitioner has although orally controverted this averment made in the reply, but on the question of fact, as to what would be the date of birth of the petitioner and whether on that basis he would be eligible on the date of selection, has to be decided on the basis of the verification made by the respondents. This Court cannot disbelieve their version. The petitioner has not controverted the averments made in the reply to the writ petition. If the petitioner was not 18 years old on the date of selection i.e. 31.3.2002, action of the respondents in not appointing him cannot be said to be illegal. His selection was merely provisional and was subject 3 to verification of his date of birth. In the result, this writ petition has no merit, therefore, is dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.29.