The date for age determination in recruitment processes is fixed at the advertisement date and not variable based on the appointment date, ensuring fairness and consistency.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 21/06/2019 (Annexure P/2), whereby the Collector, District- Datia (M.P.) allowed the appeal of respondent no.5 and set-aside the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Aaganwadi Sahayika. She is also aggrieved by the order dated 08/03/2021 (Annexure- P/1), whereby the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior has dismissed her second appeal.

2. The facts necessary for decision of this case are that an advertisement was issued by the office of the District Programme Officer, District- Datia on 06/12/2017 (Annexure- P/4) inviting applications for appointment on the post of Aaganwadi Sahayika in various Aanganwadi Centres. The petitioner as well as respondent no.5 applied for appointment in Aanganwadi Centre at Village Porsa, Tahsil- Bhander, District- Datia (M.P.). In the merit list, the name of respondent no.5 was placed at serial no.1 while one- Kripa Jatav was at serial no.2 and the petitioner was placed at serial no.3. During scrutiny, the District Programme Officer found that the respondent no.5 does not satisfy the age criteria prescribed in the advertisement, therefore, her candidature was rejected. The candidature of Kripa Jatav was also not found suitable and, therefore, the petitioner was granted appointment on the post vide order dated 05/04/2018 (Annexure- P/3). In the present case, there is no dispute with regard to Kripa Jatav and, therefore, the same is not being considered.

3. The respondent no.5 being aggrieved by cancellation of her candidature, filed an appeal before the Collector, District- Datia (M.P.). The appeal was allowed vide impugned order dated 21/06/2019 passed by the Additional Collector, District- Datia (M.P.), whereby the respondent no.5 has been found eligible for appointment and consequently, the petitioner's appointment has been cancelled. The second appeal filed by petitioner also suffered dismissal vide order dated 08/03/2021 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Gwalior Division, Gwalior.

4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the advertisement dated 06/12/2017 there is clear stipulation in clause 1 under heading^^vfuok;Z vgZrk,Wa** that candidate should have completed 18 years of age as on 01/01/2017. It is his submission that admittedly the respondent no.5 had not completed 18 years of age as on 01.01.2017, therefore, her candidature was rightly rejected by the District Programme Officer. He submitted that the Additional Collector as well as the Additional Commissioner erred in taking last date of submission of application i.e. 01/01/2018, to be relevant date for determining the age criteria and have erroneously allowed the appeal filed by respondent no.5. He, therefore, prays for setting-aside the impugned order and restoration of order of appointment of the petitioner.

5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate for the State as well as counsel for respondent no.5 supported the impugned orders and prayed for dismissal of the petition. The learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5 submitted that the State Government has issued instructions for appointment of Aanganwadi Sahayik a vide circular, dated 10/07/2007 (Annexure- R/5/1) which prescribes the age criteria in clause^^v(1)" which reads as under:-

6. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that since the appointment on the post of Aanganwadi Sahayika was made in the year 2018, cut-off date for determining the age should be 01/01/2018 and the prescription of cut-off date in this regard in advertisement was incorrect. It is his submission that instructions issued by the State Government wil