Madhya Pradesh High Court
Virendra Singh vs Union Of India on 8 September, 2025
Author: Vijay Kumar Shukla
Bench: Vijay Kumar Shukla
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:25312
1 WP-18841-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA
ON THE 8 th OF SEPTEMBER, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 18841 of 2024
VIRENDRA SINGH
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Dinesh Singh Chauhan (through v.c.), counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Romesh Dave, Dy. Solicitor General for respondents.
ORDER
The petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of action taken
by respondents in rejecting his candidature in Agnipath Scheme for
recruiting Agniveers for the Indian Army for recruiting year 2023-24.
2. Facts of the case are that in the year 2020 petitioner appeared in the
recruitment drive for Agniveer in the year 2020-21 but was not finally
selected. The petitioner again appeared in the Agniveer Recruitment test in
the year 2022 and was not able to get the final selection. On 16.2.2023
advertisement for fresh recruitment on the post of Agniveer was published by
Army Recruiting office, Mhow. Petitioner again participated in the process
and was finally able to clear the written test. The petitioner was issued admit
card for the physical test. He also participated in the physical test and was
declared successful. The candidature of the petitioner was cancelled when the
respondents came to know that date of birth for the recruitment test 2020-21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:25312
2 WP-18841-2024
was not matched with the present recruitment drive of the year 2023-24.
3. Counsel for the petitioner vehmentally argued that date of birth of
petitioner was incorrectly recorded as 1.01.2000. In the recruitment drive of
2023 he filed copy of Aadhar card mentioning date of birth as 10.4.2003. He
argued that his correct date of birth is 10.04.2003 which is as per marksheet
of class X.
4. Respondents have filed reply and submitted that as per eligibility of
age prescribed for Agniveer under the Agnipath scheme is mininum 17 and
half years and maximum age is 21 years. The respondents submitted that
petitioner was not eligible as per his correct date of birth i.e. 10.4.2003 as he
has not completed maximum qualifying age of 17 and half years in the
recruitment drive of year 2020 and therefore in order to get him qualfiied for
the said post, false entry was made in the Aadhar Card as 1.1.2000 and at the
time of recruitment drive of 2023 when he succeeded, the petitioner has
crossed the maximum age limit of 21 years and therefore correction was
made in respect of age in the Aadhar card. The respondents have further
relied on an undertaking given by the petitioner at page No. 71 of the reply.
Relevant paragraph Nos.2 to 4 are reproduced hereinbelow :-
"2.मने 10.04.2000 (ज मितिथ) से नीचे िलखी सेना भत रै ली मभाग िलया था।
(क) दे वास (ख)इं दौर(2024) (ग)धार(2022)(घ)
3. भत क उ िनकल जाने के कारण मने नई ज मितिथ 10.04.2003 से फर से 10वीं लास का
माण प और आधार काड बनवाया।
4.मुझसे गलती हो गयी है । म फर से ऐसी गलती नह ं क ं गा। कृ पया कर मेर उ मीदवार
आनेदन/ए लीकेशन फाम िनर त कया जाए। इसम मुझे कोई आप ी नह ं है और नह ं म भ व य
म कोई िशकायत क ं गा।''
5. Though counsel for the petitioner argued that Aadhar card is not a
proof of age and in support of his submission, he placed reliance on a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:25312
3 WP-18841-2024
judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench at Jabalpur in the case of Sunita
Bai Sahu Vs. State of M.P. (W.P.No. 32191/2024) decided on 8.11.2024. In
the said case relying on the similar judgment of co-ordinate Bench in the
case of Narmadi Prasad Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others decided
on 09.07.2024 in W.P. No.21501/2023 it was held that Aadhar card is not a
proof of age and the said document is only for the purpose of identity and not
for otherwise.
6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that
apparently incorrect date of birth was got recorded by the petitioner in the
Aadhar card at the time of recruitment for the post of Agniveer in the year
2020. However in the subsequent drive for the year 2023, he became over
age. The age was recorded on the basis of marksheet of class X. His
undertaking hereinabove clearly discloses that forged marksheet of class X
and Aadhar card was got prepared by him to get the benefit of age in order to
appear in the recruitment drive. Considering the submission of counsel for
respondent and the undertaking furnished, this Court is of the view that no
leniency can be shown in the case of a candidate who is aspirant for selection
on the post of Agniveer in the Army, particularly when he has made attempt
to get selected for the post by unfair means. His undertaking is clear evidence
of the same. The judgment relied by counsel for petitioner in the case of
Sunita Bai Sahu (supra) would not apply to the facts of the present case. In
the present case question is not proof of age in Aadhar card but it is the
role/conduct which has been played by candidate aspirant for the post of
Agniveer in Army.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:25312
4 WP-18841-2024
In view of aforesaid, the petition stands dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(VIJAY KUMAR SHUKLA)
JUDGE
MK
