JUDGMENT
Arun Mishra, J.
1. The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed on being unsuccessful in her attempt to assail the conditions fixing the cut-off dates in the advertisement (Annexure P-1) in Clause 3 (b) (born between 2 Sept., 70 to 1 Sept., 75) for AEC, ASC (Food Scientist), EME (MSc and MCA), INT (For Post Graduate Qualification), the writ petition has been dismissed vide the order dated 28-2-2001 [2001(2) M.P.H.T. 336].
2. An advertisement (Annexure P-1) was issued inviting applications from unmarried female or issueless widow/divorcee candidates for grant of Commission in the Indian Army. The petitioner had submitted an application on 14th January, 1997 for undergoing Women Special Entry Scheme (Officers) Eleventh WSES(O) Course (Sept., 97). The petitioner claims herself
to be a daughter of an Ex-Army Officer and belongs to the Scheduled Caste. Her application was rejected on the ground of her being over-aged. The petitioner alleged that fixing the age as 21 to 27 years (born between 2 Sept., 70 to 1 Sept., 76) is an arbitrary act as the alleged condition could be judged with reference to the date for submitting the application and not a date afterwards. Her case is that she was not over-aged on the date when she had submitted her application in the month of January, 1997. Thus the condition of having been born between 2 Sept., 70 to 1 Sept., 76 is bad in law and be set aside. It was also set up by the petitioner in the writ petition that being a Scheduled Caste candidate, she was entitled for relaxation in the eligibility criteria fixed as to the age. Thus, rejection of her application was bad in law.
3. The claim of the petitioner has been disputed by the respondents. It is contended that petitioner is over-aged by 2 1/2 months and her application has rightly been rejected and relaxation provision with respect to the age is not applicable to the defence services. Relaxation and concession for S.C. and S.T. (Annexure P-5) is to the Civilian to the Defence services.
4. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. It has been held that question of relaxation in the age-limit to the defence service does not arise.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the present appeal has raised a submission that condition mentioned in the advertisement of having born between 2 Sept., 70 to 1 Sept., 76 is illegal and arbitrary and her application should have been assessed with reference to the date of submitting the application form. She was not over-aged on the date of submitting the application in January, 1997. The learned counsel has relied on Apex Court’s decisions in Mills Douglas Michael and others Vs. Union of India and others, reported in AIR 1996 SC 1905 and U.P. Public Service Commission U.P. Allahabad and Anr. Vs. Alpna, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 723 and a decision of Patna High Court in Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh and others etc. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1998 Lab.IC 230.
6. The condition 3 (b) of the advertisement in question prescribes the age limit as under :
“3. Conditions of Eligibility;
(a) Nationality.-
(b) Age Limits.-
(i) AOC, ENG, INT (For Graduation) EME, SIGS & SC
(Adm. Offr.): 19 to 25 years (both between 2 Sept., 72 to
1 Sept., 78)
(ii) AEC, ASC (Food Scientist), EME (MSc and MCA), INT
(For Post Graduate qualification): 21 to 27 years (born
between 2 Sept., 70 to 1 Sept., 76).”
7. It appears that the last date for submitting the applications was 14th January, 1997. The date of birth of the appellant is 25th June, 1970 and she
was over-aged admittedly by about nine weeks as per cut-off date prescribed in Condition No. 3 (b) of the advertisement.
8. In Mills Douglas Michael’s case (supra), question arose for consideration before the Apex Court was interpretation of the advertisement issued for recruitment to the post of Inspectors of Central Excise, Income-tax. It has been held that minimum qualification for the post in question must pass the degree before 1-8-92. The decision in Rekha Chaturvedi Vs. University of Rajasthan, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 168, was also considered wherein the Apex Court has held that in the absence of fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications should be judged, the only certain date for scrutiny of the qualifications will be the last date for making the applications.
8-A. In U.P. Public Sendee Commission U.P. Allahabad and another’s case (supra), and advertisement inviting applications for a competitive examination were called ‘the U.P. Nyayik Seva (Munsif) Examination, 1988’. The last date for receipt of the applications was 20-8-1988. It was mentioned in the advertisement that the candidates must possess an LL.B. degree on the last date for receipt of applications. The advertisement also mentioned that an attested copy of the degree must also be attached with the application. The case of Alpna was that she had appeared in law degree examination and was awaiting result, which was declared in October, 1988. The U.P. Public Service Commission allowed her to appear in written examination held from 3rd to 5th May, 1990 which she successfully passed. She was however not called for interview on the ground that she did not satisfy the eligibility condition of educational qualification on the last date fixed for receipt of applications. On the intervention of High Court, the respondent was interviewed by the appellant but the result was kept in abeyance. Ultimately, result was directed to be declared by the High Court and if she was successful, to forward her name to the State Government for appointment. The decision of the High Court was set aside by the Apex Court and it was held that conditions mentioned in the advertisement could not be relaxed. The ratio of the decision in U.P. Public Service Commission does not support the case as espoused by the petitioner/ appellant.
9. It is open for the respondents to fix the condition in the advertisement fixing a particular date with respect to the eligibility of the criteria of the age and it is not necessary that it should be a date on which applications are received. In the instant case, without any room for entertaining any doubt, age limit was fixed of having born between 2nd Sept. 70 to 1st Sept., 76. This cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational in any manner and has a co-relation with reference to the date of commencement of the course. The submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that date of submitting the application should be taken to be date of ascertaining the eligibility on the strength of decisions of Patna High Court and the Apex Court is misconceived as it has
been clearly laid down that in absence of fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications form has to be taken as the date of advertisement for fixing eligibility criteria. Similar is the situation in the case of Dr. Arvind Kumar Singh (supra) decided by the Patna High Court. In the instant case, date has been fixed clearly, hence date of submitting application was rightly not considered for determining her eligibility.
10. In our opinion the condition mentioned in the advertisement with respect to the cut-off date is applicable for all candidates and appellant on her own showing was not born between 2 Sept., 70 to 1 Sept., 76. She was born on 25th June, 1970. Thus she was not eligible to apply. If her application is allowed and entertained, there will be several complications and that would open floodgates of litigations for those candidates who are similarly situated as that the appellant could have applied as per fixation of the cut-off date of having born between 2nd Sept., 70 to 1st Sept., 76.
11. In our opinion, the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant arc devoid of substance and unacceptable, hence rejected. No other submissions have been raised. The appeal is dismissed.
12. LPA dismissed.