01Facts
Mission Inter College, Pithoragarh advertised a Lecturer (English) vacancy, stating that the academic qualifications and age requirements would be the same as those applicable to appointments in government intermediate colleges
¶ 7The appellant, who was over 43½ years old when she applied, challenged the rejection of her candidature as over-age
¶ 6The Single Judge dismissed her writ petition, holding that the prescribed age limit also applied to minority institutions absent a specific legislative exception
¶ 4In this special appeal, the Court noted that the upper age limit for appointment as a teacher in government intermediate colleges was 42 years and that another candidate had been recommended and appointed to the vacancy
¶ 8–902Issues
i.Whether the appellant’s candidature for appointment as Lecturer (English) in a minority institution could be rejected for exceeding the 42-year upper age limit applicable to government intermediate colleges
¶ 6–9ii.Whether the Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition warranted interference in the special appeal
¶ 4, 9–1103Law Applied
The Court applied the age requirement stated in the recruitment advertisement, which made the age requirements for government intermediate colleges applicable to the advertised post.
¶ 7It also proceeded on the basis that there was no separate provision governing the upper age limit for teacher appointments in minority institutions; accordingly, the applicable prescribed age limit was not displaced merely because the institution was a minority institution.
¶ 904Reasoning
The appellant was over 43½ years old, while the upper age limit applicable to teachers in government intermediate colleges was 42 years.
¶ 6, 8The advertisement expressly adopted the same age requirements for the vacancy, and the Court found no separate provision for minority institutions that would exempt the appellant from that limit.
¶ 7, 9It therefore found no basis to fault the Single Judge’s conclusion; it also noted that another candidate had already been appointed to the post.
¶ 9–1005Holding
The Court answered the age-limit issue against the appellant and found no reason to interfere with the Single Judge’s judgment.
¶ 10–11The special appeal was dismissed.
¶ 10–11Original Court PDF
SARITA TIWARIvsSTATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
