IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12817 of 1994 Date of decision: 10.02.2010 Nirdosh Kumar ....Petitioner versus Haryana State Electricity Board and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Joginder Singh Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner challenges his non-selection to the post as Carrier Attendant, for which selection he had responded to a public advertisement in the year 1991, when he had been called for interview on 27.04.1992 and served with a letter of selection on 22.02.1994. He had been informed to report for training by 07.03.1994 and when he reported on 24.02.1994, he was not allowed to join on the ground that he was over aged and therefore, appointment could not be given to him. The petitioner admits that the advertisement notification prescribed the age of 17 to 30 years as on 30th November, 1991. The petitioner had been born on 04.05.1991 and on the date of advertisement, he had crossed 30 years. Civil Writ Petition No.12817 of 1994 - 2 - Evidently he was not eligible for consideration but the contention of the petitioner was that he had been sponsored through the Employment Exchange and he had been favoured with a letter of appointment. He was himself not guilty of any suppression and therefore, he shall not be allowed to suffer for an inadvertent omission that they were alleged to have made by not finding him ineligible even at the time when the interview was held or when the selection order was issued. 2. There could be no estoppel against a selection made on inadequate eligibility criterion which they had specifically set down. If there was an occasion for the Administration to correct its mistake, it arose before actually allowing the petitioner to join pursuant to the order of selection issued. If a false case or a mistake in allowing the petitioner to be called for interview was noticed, it is perfectly justified to recall the order of selection. If there had been a scope for relaxation of the age, the petitioner ought to have approached for such relaxation and not pleaded for a case of favourable consideration by the only fact that he had been called for an interview or that he had been sponsored through Employment Exchange. The rejection of the petitioner's claim to appointment even at the last minute, cannot be faulted and the petitioner cannot be granted any favourable relief now. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 10.02.2010. sanjeev