Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109988-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 257 of 2025 Appellant :- Harsh Mishra Respondent :- State of U.P. and 2 others Counsel for Appellant :- Kailash Prasad Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Ashutosh Tiwari, A.C.S.C. Ramanand Pandey Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. Order On Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2025 1. Heard on the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed. 3. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Order on Appeal 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 07.01.2025 passed in Writ C No. 22318 of 2024 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant, seeking quashing of the order of cancellation of his candidature for admission in sports college for Volleyball stream, has been rejected. 2. The appellant applied for admission to the sports college by claiming his age as 10 years and 6 months based on school leaving certificate. After undergoing the requisite selection process, the appellant was selected, however, when his age in terms of brochure was subjected to biological test, he was found to be beyond the age prescribed i.e. 09-12 years, based on which his admission was cancelled. Feeling aggrieved, Writ C No. 22318 of 2024 was filed. 3. When the petition came up before this Court, referring to order in Writ C No. 8085 of 2024 passed at Lucknow Bench, learned Single Judge issued a direction to the appellant to appear before a Medical Board at Swaroop Rani Nehru Hospital, Prayagraj for determination of his biological age, which was directed to be constituted by the Principal of Medical College, Prayagraj. 4. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the Medical Board was constituted for examination of biological age of the appellant and the Medical Board opined that the age of the appellant was 16- 17 years. 5. Based on the said determination, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. Feeling aggrieved the present appeal has been filed. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant made submissions that, at the first instance, once the appellant, having qualified the examination, was selected, he could not have been subjected to biological test and the Transfer Certificate indicating his age should have been accepted by the respondents and on that count alone, the writ petition should have been allowed. However, the appellant was subjected to further biological test by the Board based on which report, the petition has been dismissed, which is not justified. 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 8. The plea sought to be raised in the present case, cannot be countenanced. The admission was sought by the appellant based on Transfer Certificate indicating his date of birth as 01.10.2013. The appellant relied on birth certificate dated 09.02.2024 as well. 9. When post-selection, the appellant along with large number of other candidates was subjected to biological test, the appellant was found over age i.e. of 15 years instead of within the eligibility criteria of 9-12 years based on which his candidature was rejected. 10. When challenge was laid before this Court, under the directions of the Court, a Medical Board was constituted and the report of the Medical Board was produced before the learned Single Judge wherein age of the appellant was indicated as 16-17 years. 11. Once, the age of the appellant by the Medical Board has been found to be 16-17 years and the eligibility age has been only 9-12 years and the determination made by the Medical Board has not been questioned, the claim made by the appellant seeking to rely on a Transfer Certificate to claim the age as 10 years, cannot be countenanced. 12. The birth certificate is not contemporaneous as the same has been obtained in the year 2024. Further, insofar as the determination of biological age of the candidate is concerned, in case the difference is of few years from the claimed age, leave could have been granted to the candidate, however, once the difference in the claimed age and biological age is 6-7 years, only one conclusion can be arrived at that for seeking admission, absolutely incorrect age has been indicated. 13. So far as the plea raised pertaining to the respondents being not entitled to undertake the biological test is concerned, the said plea cannot be accepted in the present case wherein there is no acceptable material available indicating/supporting the date of birth of the appellant. It is only in cases where acceptable material i.e. contemporary birth certificate issued by the competent authority is available, that the plea raised can be examined and has even been accepted in certain cases. 14. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by learned Single Judge. The special appeal has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed. Order Date :- 10.7.2025 Sandeep/Sazia (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad