WP(C) No.602/2007 Page 1 of 3 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + WP(C) No.602/2007 % Date of Decision: 06.07.2011 Dikar Singh …. Petitioner Through Nemo Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr. …. Respondents Through Ms.Latika Choudhary, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA 1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO ANIL KUMAR, J. * 1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 3rd January, 2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in OA No.2030/2005 titled as ‘Dikar Singh v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.’, whereby the original application of the petitioner challenging the order dated 16th February, 2004 as well as 30th August, 2004 whereby the appointment of the petitioner as WP(C) No.602/2007 Page 2 of 3 Chokidar by order dated 11th December, 2003 had been terminated and his request for grant of age relaxation was declined. The relief sought by the petitioner for consequential benefit was also declined in the facts and circumstances. 2. The Tribunal categorically noted that the notice calling for the application specifically stipulated that candidates ought to have the age limit of 18-27 years as on 1st September, 2002. Before the Tribunal, it was not disputed by the petitioner that his date of birth is 30th June, 1975 and in the circumstances, ex facie he had been over age on 1st September, 2002. The petitioner had also contended before the Tribunal that he should have been granted the age relaxation as has been done in numerous cases, however, before the Tribunal no particulars of any other candidate were given in whose case the age relaxation was granted for appointment. 3. It was also noticed that the representation of the petitioner for age relaxation was considered, however, in view of the availability of large number of suitable candidates who did not even require age relaxation, the age relaxation was not granted to the petitioner. WP(C) No.602/2007 Page 3 of 3 4. The Tribunal has also considered the various precedents relied on behalf of the parties in extenso. 5. From the order of the Tribunal, it is apparent that the petitioner approached the Tribunal a number times seeking similar relief, however, it was declined to him. 6. The matter was taken up on 5th July, 2011, however, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. No adverse order was passed against the petitioner on that day in the interest of justice and the matter was allowed to remain on board in the category of ‘Regular Matters’. 7. Today, again no one is present on behalf of the petitioner. In the circumstances, this Court has no other option but to dismiss the writ petition in default of appearance of the petitioner and his counsel. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in default. ANIL KUMAR, J. SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J. July 06, 2011. vk