1 2025:CGHC:10123 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 7173 of 2024 1 - Ku. Parmeshwari Choudhari D/o Shri Bhagwan Prasad Choudhari Aged About 44 Years R/o Village And P.O. Kondtarai (Bhupdeopur) District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - High Court Of Chhattisgarh Through Registrar General Bilaspur District - Bilaspur (C.G.) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Law Department Mahanadi Atal Nagar Nawa Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harsh Tripathi, Advocate. For Res. No.1/High Court : Mr. Yashkaran Singh, Advocate. For State/Res. No. 2 : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Pandey, Dy. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order on Board 28.02.2025 1. The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition assailing the list of ineligible candidates issued by respondent No. 1/High Court by which the petitioner has been held ineligible for appointment on the post of District Judge (Entry Level) on the count of over age. 2. The brief facts as reflected from record are that respondent No. 1/High Court had issued an advertisement on 05.08.2024 for appointment on the post of District Judge (Entry Level) Examination 2023. The last date for submission of form was 31.08.2024 and the date of examination was 10.11.2024. The advertisement was issued for filling up total 36 posts out of which, 30, 02, 02 and 02 posts were reserved for unreserved, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes & Other Backward ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR DEWANGAN Date: 2025.04.01 10:48:31 +0530 2 Classes respectively and 9 posts were relying upon women as per Women Reservation Rules. The petitioner submitted her form, admit cards for all the candidates except the petitioner were issued for conducting the examination of 10.11.2024. The respondent after scrutiny of the applications submitted by the candidates, issued list of ineligible candidates in which petitioner’s name has been found place at serial number 21 declaring her ineligible on the ground of over age. Hence, this petition has been preferred by the petitioner claiming her candidature for appointment on the post of District Judge (Entry Level). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that Aadhar Card of the petitioner has been annexed along with this petition wherein her date of birth is mentioned as 21.01.1980 and she was aged below 45 years on the last date of submission of application form, therefore, declaring her ineligible is illegal and would pray for quashing of the ineligible list issued by the respondent. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 1/High Court opposing the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per mark-sheet submitted by the petitioner along with the application, her date of birth is 20.10.1977, therefore, on the last date of submission of form, the petitioner was aged above 45 years , as such, the application of the petitioner has rightly been rejected as over age and the same is legal and justified and does not warrant any interference by this Court at this stage. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record with utmost satisfaction. 6. The record of the case would clearly demonstrate that the petitioner has not annexed essential documents to show her age below 45 years 3 on the last date of submission of form whereas she has submitted Aadhar Card which is not authentic document to prima facie establish the correct date of birth whereas the respondent No. 1/High Court has submitted copy of the mark-sheet of the petitioner submitted by herself along with her application wherein date of birth of the petitioner has been mentioned as 20.10.1977 to establish that the petitioner was aged above 45 years on the last date of submission of form. 7. The authenticity and genuineness of the mark-sheet of the petitioner submitted by respondent No. 1 is not disputed by the petitioner. 8. Thus, from perusal of the documents placed on record, it is quite vivid that the age of the petitioner was above 45 years on the last date of submission of application form, therefore, the petitioner was over aged. As such, the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected by respondent No. 1 holding her to be ineligible for the post of District Judge (Entry Level) due to over age which cannot be said to be illegal or incorrect which warrants interference by this Court. 9. Considering this aspect of the matter and also considering the fact that the written examination for the said post has already been conducted on 10.11.2024, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Arun