[1] DBSAW 388/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO. 388/2009 IN S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 3143/2002 JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA Vs.STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS. Date: 12.08.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.C. GANDHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI Mr. Anil Upman, Advocate for the appellant. **** (ORAL): This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 07.11.2008 passed in Writ Petition No. 3143/2002, by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed. The appellant was selected and appointed as Para Teacher but before he could join, his appointment was cancelled vide order dated 15.04.2002 on the ground that he is over aged. He challenged the said order before the learned Single Judge on the ground that in the advertisement- notification, there is no upper age limit, therefore, appointment of the petitioner (appellant herein) would not have been withdrawn or cancelled. The appellant has relied upon the Circular dated 12.04.2002, wherein no age has been prescribed, whereas the respondents, in reply, have relied upon the Circular dated 10.04.2002, wherein [2] DBSAW 388/2009 age prescribed is similar to the age of Govt. Teachers i.e. between 18 and 33 years. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since there was no upper age limit prescribed in the notification, therefore, he is entitled to hold the post. In support of his plea, he has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in case title N.T. Bevin Katti, etc. Vs. Karnataka Public Service Commission and others, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1233. We have perused the judgment. The dispute before the Court was as to whether the candidate should be selected taking into consideration the date of advertisement of the post, or if any circular has been issued by the Government thereafter, whether effect of circular would have affect the selection, the Supreme Court ruled that the candidate will be selected as per original advertisement. Therefore, this judgment is of no help to the appellant. Be that as it may, the appellant cautiously filled his form and has given an undertaking before the respondents that in case he is found over age to that what is prescribed by the Government, his selection shall be liable to be cancelled. This has been referred by the learned Single Judge in course of his order, which reads as under:- “The respondents opposed the writ petition. Apart from relying on the aforesaid Circular dated 12.4.2002 they have also referred to the undertaking given by the petitioner himself in which he had stated before the Block Level Selection Committee that if as [3] DBSAW 388/2009 per the government rules, his age is found to be exceeding the prescribed upper age limit, his selection would be liable to be cancelled without any notice.” The appellant is bound by his undertaking. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the appeal, which is, accordingly, dismissed. (K.S. CHAUDHARI),J. (R.C. GANDHI), J. /KKC/