€ c-y •^.;'• 1/7 SingleBendT^ IN TIIE COURT OFHONOURABLE HIGHCOURT OF CHHATHSGARHATBILASPUR WRrTPETmONNO 2&.37-/ 2003 PETITIONER SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA S/0 MR. MAYARAM SHARMA AGED ABOUT 28 YEAR RESIDENCE OP NEXT TO ARVIND DAIRY FORM JARHABHATA POLICE STATION CrVILLINESBILASPUR(C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^y^^^ ^**^' 1. STATE OFCHHATTISGARH THROUGH irs CHIEF SECRETRARY . HOMEDEPARTMENT D.K. S.BHAVAN ' MANTRALAYA RAIPUR C.G. 2. DIRECTORGENERALOFPOLICE POLICE HEAD QUARTER RAIPUR C.G. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OFPOLICE DISTT. BBLASPUR C.G. WRTT PETTION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF INDIA POR ISSUANCE OFAPPROPRIATEWRITS AVRFTS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS/ AND /OR CETIORARY/AND/ OR PROHrBITION/ADN/ OR OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDERS/ORDER -I XI-HC-22 Stl^I^iT T^ii?h i'iKi^r ^aw 5R*II^ W '3^-<ll<<l<n<i, ®'al'u''ie,3ftKni'M3<s : '^.^^sf^f^-si^sK:^ ^.,;.AAl.^...2&.X^ *IIMCTI ailltti 200 <? l<«><^ff' 1ti?T aii^r ?^n'y? ^rfftT 10092003 Sdieral ttte 5hri Suresfcpandey.couh^el Or. N.K.5hukla,i4dditior<al K. Agrowal, Deputy Advocate By -this petition under Articles India, the petitioner has chdll^r 2003 passed by the Director whereby respondent No.3, BHaqaur, has informed the petiljj that due to change in the potiq) of Subln^ector ofPolice. The petitioner's case is issued by reqiondent No.2, the| 5ub Inspector and his appliajtion allowed to appear in the physjcal physical test and how the e!?«mination on Utl1 <& 12th of ^et who have clear the physical issued the impugned order infloi eljgible being over age. The i|n( iltegal, arbitrary, and coprices rule of law. After allowing 1'hj <ft(^I<1<fl'1 **WClf^l^&l ^<ffl1$l< ^T Srf^iPT •aGR^T I for the petjtkiner, Advocate Seneralwith Shri Sanjcy for the State/respondents. 226 & 227 of the Constitution of nged the order dorted 1 Septeniber, Senerdl pf Police (respondent No.2), Superintendent of Police, Distt. ionervidehis letter dated 05.09.2003 ofage limh', he te not fit to the post Ithat in pursuance to •the notification petitioner had appljed for the post of form was accepted and he was test. The petitioner clearedthe are conducting the written eptember, 2003, of those caiididates st. All pf asudden, respondent No.3 irntjng the petitiqner -rtiat he is not npugned order of pespondent No.3 is gainst the establisfled ppinciples qnd petitibner to appear in the physical ^ t^^w re^ionderits tdst ih'i !!ff '" XI-HC-22 aii^r^i R'ii* ssflRi 'ai^fl v <i'nj'»rf|l<)|<!'l<|,'anii)wre,^»iflW^ ^iIli^TJlicp »<IN?11n><liq» •X 2SO 'Sre^a" -2- oil^ ^^<i^< til^fl +R<!+_ +h(' rESpondents are <t*i<rfCT<fly*n<iici^ ^^^'f^^ ^-aS^rffl ^fl^4S ^ot wi+hin their right to debar the minitnum petitioner from appearing in th| Preliminary objection State/req)ondents. I have heard the leamecl The relevomt rules fori Inspector have been fromed bj these rules prescribed -riie mji eligible to flppedr in the tes1j Executive. Ckiuse (d) of sulj aindidate must have the Cplumn 4of Schedule-IEC andl years aSprescribecl jn Column / ' ^ ,. ' . ! the year succeeding the y^ conducting the exam. September, 2003, therefoFe, not have crossed theage of Zji coindickite ought to have January, 2004. Since the as on 01.01.2004 his age will) Therefore, the petitioner will| the rules, the petitioner shouljj fewrittenexamination. has been filed oh behalf of the Sin4e counsel for the part-ies. |the recruitment to the post of Sub |^ the State of Chhdtt-isgarh. RuleS of ^imuffl and maximuffljage limit for being for the post of Non-Sazett'ed Police 1-rule (t) of Rule 8 lays dovm that g age of 18 years as prescribed in Ishould have notcrossed theage of28 of Schedule-rEI as on 1 January of ^ar of hiviting thie opplications cuid |e the exam is being conducted in ^is per this Rule, the candidate diould years as on 1st January, 2004 or the the age. of 18 years as on 1 dort-e of birfh is 10.11.1975 and be 28 years, one month and 21 doys. be over age as on ^)1.01.2004. As per not have crossed the age of 28 years. r IW^A confcleted pe-tjtioner's ^^^i^ . '^%^:^1 ly i:'s- • ^SK '•^y^g:" •^SS^s} ss XI-HC-22 ai^w^?» ft-ii'tian^ii *4-)!<^ '"H^l Soma "3^-»<ll*lii<'f<<,-'wia)^i<o, ftfilft'^ ^n^t'ci'si^ <ii*<ni a>*iitn •~^ 2 '^FB^I' <fl(^l ?tai^R ^^^ ^' TherBf8re,"1"li®t»etittorwr i's ag^h' overage; as sych nobody could mistoike he was atlowed to detecting the said mistake i-1 petH-ioner that being over written exam, they have notj there is no substance in tliis pi In the circufflstances, same is liable to be dismissl dismissed. ? Gonsequently, M.(W.)P.( -stand disposed df. permithim to apj)ear intheexam.By 4ppear m physical lest, but later on the respondents have intimated thfe ^he coinnot be allowed to appear m thel committed any ill^ality. TheFefor'e,; itition. 1-he pe+ition is without force and the |xj. Accordingty, the writ petition is ho.2592/2003 and I.A.No.8497/2003 <t>I^OTril''i ^mv^ "^^&^RglT i?«Pdf*t<t^^ + ^tlinihlff +n nhho'np in ^ft :*»<+ hi Ipp eing • 'M • ^x^> \v D»%1^