' In May, 2003, respondent No,1 invited applications from the suitable candidates for The appointment against the vacant post of Patwari. The minimum qualification was Matriculation and the maximum age limit prescribed was 35 years. The petitioner inter alia applied for the job, according to him, he has toped the merit list, but has not been allowed the interview by the respondents on account of his being overage. The decision of the respondents is based upon the Matriculation Certificate, in which, the date of birth of the petitioner is recorded as 5-4-1968, which means that he is above 35 years. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that, according to the Birth Certificate of the petitioner, his date of birth is 8-12-1968 and therefore, he falls within the prescribed age limit, resultantly, respondent No,1 has illegally relied upon the Matriculation Certificate and ignored the birth certificate.
2. I am afraid, this contention has no force, because the Matriculation Certificate had been submitted by the petitioner himself and until and unless, the entry of the age is corrected by the Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education in accordance with law, 5-4-1968 was the date of birth of the petitioner, which rightly has been taken into consideration by respondent No, 1.
Moreover, the Birth Certificate, on which the petitioner has relied, has not been appended with this petition. Resultantly, I do not find any illegality in the impugned action of the respondent calling for interference in the Constitutional jurisdiction. Dismissed.