1 W.P. No.1995/2010 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, BENCH AT GWALIOR. SB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Sujoy Paul Writ Petition No.1995 of 2010 Raghvendra Dubey Vs. State of M.P. and others ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shri D.S.Raghuvanshi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Pravin Newaskar, Dy.Govt.Advocate for the respondent/State. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- O R D E R ( /10/2011) The singular question involved in this petition is whether the petitioner, whose date of birth is 1.7.1990, can be said to be age-barred in the Patwari selection, which prescribes the age limit as not less than 18 years and not above 33 years. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by Annexure P/1 his candidature was rejected by assigning the reason that the petitioner is below the age limit. The age limit is 18 to 33 years. However it was not in dispute between the parties that there is no statutory recruitment rules governing the field. The parties submit that Clause 1.5 of Annexure P/2 deals with the age limit which prescribes that the age should not be below 18 years and above 33 years. The pivotal question is as to on which date this age is to be counted, the age when advertisement was issued, the age when application was preferred or the age when application was received by the respondents or the age on the last date of submission of application/candidature. 3. This point is no more res integra. The Apex Court in various judgments has dealt with this aspect. Recently, this Court in 2011 (III) MPJR 8 (Ashish Singh vs. State of MP and others) (Principal Bench) has held that if no cut off date is prescribed then the last date on which the application is to be received by the employer will be the cut off date for determining the age of the candidate. In the present case, the last 2 W.P. No.1995/2010 date for receiving the application was 7.7.2008 as per the advertisement. Thus, it is to be seen whether the petitioner falls within the prescribed age limit on the said date or not. Counting it from 1.7.1990, it is clear that the petitioner has completed 18 years before 7.7.2008, the last date of forwarding the candidature online as per Annexure P/2. 4. Accordingly, by applying the ratio of Ashish Singh's case (supra) petition is allowed. Annexure P/1 is quashed and set aside to the extent it relates to the petitioner and respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the post of Patwari in District Bhind from the date similarly situated persons of the select list were considered. If petitioner succeeds in selection, he shall be entitled to count his seniority on the post of Patwari from the date his other contemporaries / candidates were selected and appointed in the same selection in which petitioner's candidature was rejected. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled for proforma pay fixation and notional seniority from the aforesaid date. 5. With the aforesaid finding, petition is allowed. No costs. (Sujoy Paul) Judge (Yog)