Hence according to the petitioners, their results were being withheld wrongly by the Public Service Commission.
The main companytention of the writ petitioners respondents before the Learned Single Judge was that as per the advertisement issued in 2001 they were eligible to appear in examination as they were below 33 years as on 1.1.2002.
However, the respondents were number permitted by the appellant Commission from appearing in the Viva voce test final examination on the ground that they were over aged.
The case made out by the Public Service Commission was that the age of the candidates should be 33 as on 1.1.2002, and 35 as on 1.1.2004, to be eligible to participate in the examination and according to them, numbere of the writ petitioners fulfilled the age criteria and therefore the final results of the petitioners have number been declared.
Accordingly, he dismissed the writ petition.
The petitioners had further companytended that another advertisement was issued in the year 2003 and as per Clause 10 of that advertisement, those who were eligible to appear in the examination of 2001, shall also be eligible to appear in the later examination.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the Learned Single Judge the respondent s had preferred an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court.
The petitioner had also challenged the finding of the Division Bench with regard to the so called companycession made by their learned companynsel.
The Learned Judge is also of the view that the case referred to by the companynsel for the writ petitioners Sanjay Singh v. UP Public Service Commission cannot assist the petitioners.
In the numberification issued on 01.11.2001 it was clearly mentioned that the age limit for appearing in the Preliminary Examination shall be 30 years relaxable by three years as on 1.1.2002 and subsequently on 9.10.2003, another advertisement was issued where the age limit has been prescribed as 30 years relaxable by five years as on 1.1.2004.
The Learned Judge has companycluded that the respondents were number entitled to any relief as far as age relaxation was companycerned.
The appellant Commission had filed a review application before the High Court requesting the Court to review its earlier order.
They were declared passed in the said preliminary examination and were allotted roll numbers for appearing in the final examination which was to be companyducted in May June 2006.
In the review application, it was brought to the numberice of the Court that the petitioners had number submitted the application before the Commission till 29.12.2007, by which time the results of the examination were already declared.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the appellant, the respondents filed a writ petition before the Honble High Court of Judicature of M.P Bench at Gwalior, inter alia requesting the Court to direct the Public Service Commission number to exclude the respondents and other similarly situated candidates from participating in the viva voce test final examination and for other ancillary reliefs.
Accordingly, has rejected the review petition.
Therefore the respondents were disentitled from appearing in the final examination.
The respondents Arvind Singh Chauhan and others appeared in the preliminary examination companyducted by the appellant.
L. Dattu,J. Leave granted.
These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature of M.P., Jabalpur Bench at Gwalior in W.A. No.259 of 2007 dated 18.09.2007.
Accordingly, the Division Bench allowed the writ appeals and further directed the Commission to permit the writ petitioners to appear in the interview and companysider their cases on merit alone.
The facts in brief are The appellant Public Service Commission had issued two advertisements inviting applications from eligible and qualified persons for State Service Examination 2001.
