Facts
The petitioner applied for engagement as an Aaya/Helper at Primary School Jabda and was included in a tentative select list.
Source reference: p.1–3Following an objection that she was underage, the selection committee examined her school qualification certificate, which recorded her date of birth as 4 March 2005, and issued a corrigendum cancelling her provisional selection and selecting respondent No. 4 instead.
Source reference: p.1–3The petitioner relied on a Medical Board certificate assessing her age as 23 and argued that her lower family income gave her a superior claim.
Source reference: p.1–3The official respondents maintained that she was ineligible under the applicable guidelines, which required candidates to be at least 18 years old on 1 January 2023.
Source reference: p.1–3Issues
Whether the petitioner met the minimum age requirement of 18 years as of 1 January 2023, having regard to her school certificate and the Medical Board’s age assessment.
Source reference: p.2–4Whether the respondents acted lawfully in cancelling the petitioner’s tentative selection and provisionally selecting respondent No. 4.
Source reference: p.3–4Law Applied
Under the guidelines issued by the Director, Samagra Shiksha, through Order No. 07 of CHIRAG-2023 dated 9 January 2023, a candidate had to be 18 years old on the first day of the calendar year to be eligible; among eligible candidates, priority was to be given to the candidate with the lowest annual income, as verified by the Tehsildar.
Source reference: p.2–3The Court also applied the principle that where a school discharge certificate based on official academic records is available, medical opinion cannot be relied upon to determine a candidate’s age.
Source reference: p.4Reasoning
The petitioner’s school certificate recorded her date of birth as 4 March 2005, making her 17 years, 9 months and 28 days old on 1 January 2023 and therefore ineligible under the guidelines.
Source reference: p.3–4The Court held that the school record prevailed over the Medical Board’s age assessment. The petitioner’s income-based claim could not overcome her failure to meet the threshold eligibility requirement; respondent No. 4 was selected from the remaining eligible candidates.
Source reference: p.3–4Holding
The Court held that the respondents lawfully issued the corrigendum cancelling the petitioner’s tentative selection and that it disclosed no legal or factual infirmity.
The writ petition was dismissed for want of merit.
Source reference: p.4Original Court PDF
MST.SAKEENA BANOOvsUNION TERRITORY OF J AND K AND ORS. (SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT)
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
