(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned letter Bearing No.Tuvivasamthee.255.2024-25 dtd. 26.08.2024 issued by the R-5 produced as Annx-F in the consequence, direct the R-5 to hold an interview of the petitioner, without prejudice, and declare the result of interview on merit, in the interest of justice and equity.

This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct all the respondents in general and the R-5 in Particular, to consider the representations at Annexure-D and E and thereby grant interview to the post of Sanskrit Lecturer in G.M. Women Quota, (per Annexure-B) to the petitioner, considering the exemption as stated in Annexure-C.)

Oral Order

1. The petitioner filed W.P.No.24353/2024 seeking the following reliefs:

          i. Issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the impugned letter bearing No.TuViVaSamThee:255:2024-25 dated 26.08.2024 issued by the 5th respondent, produced as Annexure-F, in the consequence, direct the 5th respondent to hold an interview of the petitioner, without prejudice, and declare the result of the interview on merit, in the interest of justice and equity.

          ii. Pass any suitable orders or directions to the respondents in the circumstances of the case including the cost of the proceedings.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor in Sanskrit. The application of the petitioner was not considered on the ground that the petitioner was over aged. He submits that the government has issued a order dated 18.05.2023, extending the upper age limit, however the respondents did not consider the Government Order dated 18.05.2023 as per Annexure C. He submitted that as per Annexure C, the petitioner is entitled to the post of lecturer in Sanskrit. The respondents committed an error in not considering her application vide Annexure-B. The action of the respondents in not considering the application of the petitioner is arbitrary and erroneous. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.

3. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submits that on the date of submitting the application the petitioner was over aged. She submits that as per the notification issued by the respondent vide Annexure-A, the age of the candidate should be 40 years for General, OBC-43 years and SC/ST and Category-1 up to 45 years. Admittedly, the petitioner was 40 years 2 months 21 days. Thus, the petitioner was over aged, and her application to the post of Assistant Professor in Sanskrit is not tenable, and further, she submits that the Government Order dated 18.05.2023 has a prospective effect, and not retrospective effect. Admittedly the petitioner was over aged, and further, the petitioner is not eligible, and hence, rightly the petitioner's application was not considered and accordingly, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition.

4. Learned counsel Sri. H.R.Showri, for respondent No.5 adopts the arguments of learned Additional Government Advocate. In addition to it, he also submits that the selection process is already completed by an interim order. The selection list has not been published. Hence on these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.

5. Perused the records, and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.

6. It is an undisputed fact that the notification was issued inviting the applications for the post of Assistant Professors in Sanskrit vide Annexure-A. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor on 16.03.2023 vide Annexure-B. As on the date of submitting an application, the petitioner age was 40 years 2 months 21 days. As per the notification vide Annexure-A, the age limit has been fixed. As per the notification, the age limit for General category is 40 years, OBC- 43 years, SC/ST and category 1 is up to 45 years.

7. From the perusal of Annexure-A, those who are having full time teaching experience in Aided college will get maximum 5 years age relaxation in total teaching experience or whichever is less. The candidates seeking age relaxation must submit the experience certificate attested by the concerned Joint Director and Commissioner, Collegiate Education, Bangalore.

8. Admittedly, the petitioner has downloaded the application from the college website, she stated that her application for the post of Assistant Professor in Sanskrit pursuant to the paper publication dated 03.03.2023. The petitioner herself declared her date of birth is 02.01.1983 in column No.3 of the application and in column No.10, she declared that she belongs to General category.

9. Admittedly as of the date of submitting the application the petitioner was over aged. The respondents have rightly did not consider the application of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor in Sanskrit. The government has issued a order on 18.05.2023, and the date of issuing the application dated 03.03.2023 vide Annexure A is a paper notification. The last date for submitting an application was already over. The government order was issued subsequent to the last date of submitting an application. The said government order dated 18.05.2023, has prospective effect, and not a retrospective effect as it was issued only after the last date of submitting the applications.

10. The petitioner filed application based on the paper publication, wherein the age limit was fixed for general category. Despite knowing fully well that the petitioner was not qualified for the post of Assistant Professor she has submitted an application. The respondents did not consider the application of the petitioner on the ground that she is over aged. Hence I do not find any error in the action of the respondents in not considering the application of the petitioner for the post of Assistant Professor in Sanskrit. The selection process is over. Due to interim order, the final selection list was not published. In view of the same, I do not find any grounds to entertain the writ petition.

11. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order:

ORDER

          i. The writ petition is dismissed.

          ii. In the W.P.No.22839 of 2024, the petitioner sought for mandamus directing respondent No.5 to consider the representations vide Annexures-D and E. In view of the dismissal of W.P.No.24353 of 2024, the writ petition No.22839/2024 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, W.P.No.22839/2024 is dismissed as having become infructuous.