HP High Court reinstates candidate rejected for "override" in Van Mitra selection

Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) [India], September 5 (ANI): The Himachal Pradesh High Court has quashed the rejection of a woman candidate's application for the post of Van Mitra on the ground of being "overage" by a single day, terming the decision arbitrary and inconsistent.
The court also cancelled the appointment of the selected candidate and directed the State to appoint the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
Justice Sandeep Sharma, while allowing the petition filed by Suchitra, held that the interpretation of the age criterion by the Forest Department was flawed and discriminatory.
The case arose from a 2023 recruitment drive for 2,061 Van Mitra posts. The selection process was modified after the court earlier struck down viva voce marks, leaving 90 marks -- 75 for education and 15 for other documents.
Suchitra, who was born on January 15, 1999, applied on the last date for submission -- January 15, 2024 -- and topped the merit list with 64.1 marks.
However, her candidature was rejected on the grounds that she had crossed the maximum permissible age of 25 years.
Clause C.3 of the Van Mitra Scheme stated: "That candidate should not be less than 18 years & not more than 25 years of age as on the last date of receipt of applications."
While the State argued that she had completed 25 years a day before her birthday, the court disagreed.
"When the lower age limit is inclusive, the same criteria should be adopted for the upper age limit also," Justice Sharma observed, adding that excluding a candidate on the very day she turns 25 was illogical.
The court found that Suchitra had remained within the eligible age from the opening of applications until the last date and that the rejection was a result of "arbitrary interpretation" of the age rule.
Quashing the December 13, 2024, order that declared her ineligible, the court directed the State to offer her appointment to the post of Van Mitra from the same date the private respondent was appointed.
The appointment of the private respondent was also set aside.
"The clause itself discriminates in the matter of lower and upper age limits," the judgment noted, stressing that fairness required uniform application of the inclusivity principle to both. (ANI)