IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 16630 of 2010 Date of Decision: September 16, 2010 Union of India and another …Petitioners Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and another …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mr. Balbir Singh Sewak, Standing Counsel for UOI, for the petitioners. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against order dated 17.3.2010 (P-2), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal’), holding that the applicant-respondent No. 2 was not over age for consideration of his case for promotion to the post of Inspector, Central Excise. In the process, the Tribunal has interpreted Note-2 and Note-5 appended to Rule 7 of the Central Excise and Land Customs Department Inspector (Group ‘C’ Posts) Recruitment Rules, 2002. The Tribunal has found while interpreting the aforesaid notes that the maximum age limit stipulated in Note 2 is imputable to the eligibility for written test, which is CWP No. 16630 of 2010 to be qualified by a candidate before his promotion to the post of Inspector as may be determined by the Central Board of Excise and Custom from time to time. The Tribunal has further interpreted Note 5 and has cited the example of one Shri Angad Kumar, who was born on 18.9.1957 and on the crucial date of determining his eligibility i.e. 1.1.2007, he was also over 50 years of age. The Tribunal accordingly found that there is no age bar for consideration of the case of the applicant-respondent No. 2 for promotion to the post of Inspector as the age bar is only applicable to qualifying the written test. There is no explanation offered as to why Shri Angad Kumar, who was also overage, was granted promotion. 2. Having heard learned counsel we do not find any legal infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court. The interpretation adopted by the Tribunal is in accord with the view of the department as has been illustrated by the example of one Angad Kumar. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) September 16, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 2