Sindhu Sharma JUDGMENT
Sindhu Sharma, J.
1. Petitioner applied for the posts of Librarian which were notified vide Advertisement Notification No. 18-PSC (DR-P) of 2016 dated 13.12.2016 by respondent No. 2. While notifying these posts, the age limit prescribed in various categories was notified in terms of Cabinet Decision No. 98/07/2014 dated 03.06.2014 and Government Order No. 586-GAD of 2014 dated 03.06.2014. The age of the candidate for the said post as on 01.01.2016 was prescribed as under:-
2. Since in terms of the said notification, the age of the in-service candidates was prescribed as 40 years as the petitioner was over the minimum eligible prescribed age for the said post by two years four months and eight days, as such, his candidature was rejected vide notice dated 05.02.2018 issued by respondent No. 2
3. Aggrieved of his rejection, petitioner approached this Court by way of writ petition bearing SWP No. 69/2017 and this Court vide its order dated 18.01.2017 directed the respondent-Public Service Commission to entertain the application form of the petitioner and allow him to participate in the selection process. This order was however subject to further orders from this Court. Respondents-Public Service Commission, thus, in compliance to the orders of this Court, entertained the application form of the petitioner and allowed him to participate in the interview on 08.03.2018.
4. Petitioner, thus, seeks quashing of notice dated 05.02.2018 to the extent that the petitioner was declared ineligible and over-aged for the post of Librarian in the Higher Education Department. A direction is also sought to respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to consider the petitioner within age limit as on 01.01.2016 in terms of Communication No. HE-Coll/Apptt. Librarian/2016 dated 23.08.2016 within the age for the post advertised pursuant to Advertisement Notification No. 18-PSC (DR-P) of 2016 dated 13.12.2016, notwithstanding 40 years of age mentioned for in-service candidates in Government Service in Clause-2 of Notification dated 13.12.2016 and also for recommending him for appointment.
5. It is submitted that notice dated 05.02.2018 to the extent it declares the petitioner ineligible for selection to the post of Librarian as it is illegal, bad and unconstitutional. Respondents had earlier also issued Notification No. 22-PSC (DR-P) of 2013 dated 16.12.2013 for 42 posts of Librarian and the petitioner had applied for the said posts. These posts were withdrawn vide order No. 143-PSC of 2016 dated 29.09.2016, as the respondent No. 1 had sought withdrawal vide communication dated 02.08.2016. However, subsequently a fresh requisition of 67 posts of Librarian was made and in this regard and notification No. 18-PSC (DR-P) of 2016 dated 13.12.2016 was issued and the petitioner vide order dated 18.01.2017 in SWP No. 69/2017 was allowed to take part in selection process and respondents were directed to entertain his application form.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 1 vide his communication dated 26.10.2016 had specifically stated that the candidates, who had applied earlier, need not to apply again and their earlier application would be considered valid for the said post, provided otherwise eligible. Since the petitioner had applied in terms of the earlier Advertisement Notification No. 22-PSC (DR-P) of 2013 dated 16.12.2013 but the said posts were withdrawn, therefore, his application was considered for the post of Librarian also. His eligibility, however, in terms of this communication dated 26.10.2016 would remain same.
7. Reliance has also been placed by the petitioner on a communication dated 23.08.2016 issued by respondent No. 1/Higher Education Department to respondents/Public Service Commission, vide which they had requested the respondents/PSC to treat the cut-off date for age........