Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SAUMITRA DAYAL SINGH, INDRAJEET SHUKLA
Anita Rani – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Umang Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant; Ms. Akanksha Sharma, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 & 4 and, Mr. Ankit Gaur, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. Present intra-Court appeal has arisen against the order of learned Single Judge dated 08.05.2025 in Anita Rani versus State of U.P. and 4 others, Neutral Citaion:-2025:AHC:74204 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, observing as follows:-
“11. In view of above, the relevant dates are (I) date of completion of Special BTC Course, (ii) date of submission of form for recruitment process and (iii) date of appointment.
12. In present case, petitioner has completed Special BTC Training course on 12.06.2012 and advertisement was issued on 19.12.2014 i.e. after 2 years and 6 months and 7 days. The petitioner was a Scheduled Caste candidate, therefore, a relaxation of 5 years was granted in maximum age limit i.e. 45 years and she can apply after adding 2 years 6 months and 7 days i.e. up to 47 years 6 months 21 days as on cut off date i.e. 01.07.2014 taking into consideration that course was concluded
The court ruled that appointments exceeding statutory age limits are void, yet if no fraud occurs, longstanding service may warrant equitable relief despite technical violations.
Irregular appointments without fraud may be permitted to continue under sympathetic circumstances, despite age limit breaches in eligibility. Appointments declared void-ab-initio in accord with U.P. ....
Right of the petitioners to claim age relaxation as they were within age and had applied for recruitment pursuant to the earlier advertisement which got cancelled.
Eligibility criteria for recruitment must be strictly adhered to, and any changes post-selection cannot retroactively affect concluded processes.
Identical candidates holding Dip Ed qualifications from 2008 are entitled to age relaxation in recruitment processes, as consistent with judicial precedents supporting equal treatment under the law.
Employment cannot be claimed as legal if the appointment violated established recruitment age criteria, regardless of prior service or the rules governing age relaxations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
