The judgment establishes the importance of adhering to age criteria, age relaxation provisions, and the candidate's preferences for different posts in the selection process.

Gita Mittal (Oral);—

1. The petitioner in the instant case has participated in the selection process for the post of SI/ASI in the Central Police Organization conducted pursuant to an advertisement dated 28th May, 2011 in the Employment News/Rozgar Samachar. It is undisputed that the petitioner was an ex-service man candidate who had applied in the Scheduled Caste category and is therefore entitled to age relaxation.

2. The petitioner successfully participated in the written examination; physical efficiency test; medical examination as well as the interview. The grievance of the petitioner that despite his successful participation, as per the result declared on 1st March, 2012, no letter of appointment was issued to the petitioner. His representations dated 4th July, 2012 and 5th February, 2013 were also not responded to.

3. In the counter affidavit, the respondents have taken a stand that the petitioner was overage and therefore was not offered the appointment. In response thereto, the petitioner urged that even though he may have been overage for consideration for appointment to the Group B post of Sub-Inspector in the CISF, BSF, CRPF, however, he was within the age criterion for the appointment to the post of ASI in the CISF, Group C post.

In view of the above, we had called for the original record of the petitioner including the application which he had submitted. The record has been produced and perused by us.

4. The record substantiates the case set up by the respondents. The respondents had offered vacancies for the following post in the advertisement dated 28th May, 2011:

Sl. No.	Post Code	Post Name	Post Category
1.	A	SI in CISF Gr.	‘B’ Post
2.	B	ASI in CISF Gr.	‘C’ Post
3.	C	SI in BSF Gr.	‘B’ Post
4.	D	SI in CRPF Gr.	‘B’ Post
5.	E	SI in ITBP Gr.	‘B’ Post
6.	F	SI in SSB Gr.	‘B’ Post
7.	G	IO in NCB Gr.	‘B’ Post

5. So far as age criteria substantiated by the respondent is concerned, it had been notified that the candidates had to be between 20 to 25 years of age as on 24th June, 2011 stipulated as the cut-off date.

6. The notice of examination further made the following specific prescriptions:

“4. That regarding age limit, the notice of examination stated as under:

“Para 4 (A) AGE LIMIT: for the post of Sub-Inspector in COPs and Asstt. Sub-Inspector in CISF: 20 – 25 years as on 24.06.2011, the normal closing date for receipt of application. Candidates should not have been born earlier than 25-06-1986 and not later than 23-06-1991.

Age limit for the post of Intelligence Officer in NCB is 20 -27 years as on 24-06-1984. Candidates should not have been born earlier than 25-06-1984 and not later than 23-06-1991.

4 (B). Category codes and age relaxation available to different category of eligible candidates, for claiming Age Relaxation as on the date of reckoning:

Code Category Age relaxation permissible beyond the upper age limit

xx xx xxx xxx

For Group B post 08 Ex-Servicemen 10 years (SC/ST) xx xx xxx xxx 11 For Group C Post 08 years (3 years +5 years) after deduction of the military service rendered from the actual age as n the closing date.

The notice is considered sacrosanct by the Commission for the conduct of all its examinations and the Commission adheres strictly to its stipulations. The candidates are also equally bound by its provisions.”

7. We may usefully refer to the conditions given in Note-I & Note II of para 12 of the Notice:

“Note I: Success in the Examination confers no right of appointment unless government is satisfied after such enquiry as may be considered necessary that the candidate is suitable in all respects of appointment to the service/post.

Note II: The candidates applying for the examination should ensure that they fulfil all the eligibility conditions for admission ion the examination. Their admission at all the stages of examination will be purely