This order dismisses a writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's candidature for the post of conductor. The single-bench order holds that the petitioner exceeded the age limit and failed to secure sufficient marks.
The writ petition was dismissed without costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO
WP No. 13081 of 1999
ORDER:
None appears for the writ petitioner even today. Heard Smt. W.V.S.Rajeswari, learned Standing Counsel for the APSRTC.
This writ petition has been instituted questioning the validity of the proceedings dated 30.3.1999 issued by the Regional Manager, Tirupati, rejecting the candidature of the writ petitioner for appointment to the post of conductor’. Pursuant to the directions issued by this court in WP No. 30768 of 1998, the case of the writ petitioner has been considered for appointment as a conductor’. The writ petitioner appeared before the selection committee on 23.2.1999 in that regard. The date of birth as furnished by the writ petitioner is 1.7.1963 and that he has passed SSC examination during March 1979 securing 332 marks out of 600. Taking the marks secured by him at the SSC as the relevant criteria, the petitioner was declared by the Selection Committee to have secured total marks of 82.40 including weightage marks awarded taking into account the respective ages of the candidates. As per the selection committee, the last candidate who has been selected under open competition secured 83.4 marks. Since he has secured lesser marks than the candidate
who has secured 83.4, the petitioner was not selected. Going by the date of birth furnished by the writ petitioner, he had completed 35 years of age by 1.7.1998. As per condition No.3, the candidates were required not to exceed 35 years of age as on 1.7.1998. So, on both these counts, the candidature of the writ petitioner has been denied.
In the affidavit filed in support of this writ petition, it is contended that even reckoning the age from his date of birth, viz., 1.7.1963, he would not have exceeded 35 years of age by 1.7.1998 and hence the respondent has wrongly reckoned the condition No.3. It will be important to notice that the candidates were required not to exceed the upper age limit of 35 years by 1.7.1998. Since the date of birth of the petitioner is 1.7.1963, he would have completed 35 years by the midnight of 30.6.1998. Hence, as on 1.7.1998, the petitioner would have exceeded the maximum age of 35 years. ( S e e Prabhu Dayal Sesma v. State of Rajasthan – (1986) 4 SCC 59 – para 14). If one year time is to be reckoned from 1st of July of any particular year, the same would expire by 30the June of the succeeding year. Therefore, the writ petitioner herein has, unfortunately, exceeded the age of 35, the maximum age permissible for recruitment as a conductor as on 1.7.1998, inasmuch as he had completed 35 years of age by midnight of 30.6.1998 itself. Therefore, his pleading to
the contra is without any merit. With regard to the 2nd count, candidates were required to possess a minimum of 21 years. For every year of age thereafter, certain weightage marks are added. For those who have completed 34 years, 17 marks are added towards weightage. Since the petitioner has completed 35 years, 18 weightage marks are added to his X class percentage of 64.4 thus making his total marks for selection to be 82.4. Since, the last open category candidate has secured 83.4 of marks which is more than what the writ petitioner has gained, his non selection as a conductor cannot be faulted.
There are no merits in the writ petition. Hence, it is dismissed. However, without costs.
--------------------------------Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J
knk 24th June 2010
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petitioner exceeded the maximum age of 35 years by 1.7.1998 for appointment as a conductor.
Whether the selection committee correctly applied age-based weightage marks and selection criteria to the Writ Petitioner.
Whether the impugned order rejecting the candidature of the Writ Petitioner is liable to be set aside.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prabhu Dayal Sesma v. State of RajasthanExplained¶7
Prabhu Dayal Sesma v. State of Rajasthan – (1986) 4 SCC 59 – para 14 · Who else cites this
Writ Petitioner
APSRTC
Nooty Ramamohana Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
