THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.195 of 2014 DATE: 10.11.2014 Between:
Andhra Pradesh Unemployees Association, Hyderabad.
… Petitioner And The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Chief Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad and another.
… Respondents This Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION No.195 of 2014 Order: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This Writ Petition has been filed asking for a writ, order or direction suitably and also praying for declaration that the action of the respondents in extending the age limit for superannuation from 58 to 60 years insofar as the Government Servants by issuing Act 4 of 2014 as published in G.O.Ms.No.63, dated 27.06.2014, is unconstitutional and arbitrary.
The fact of the case is narrated here.
After bifurcation of the Sate, State of Andhra Pradesh has increased the age of retirement of the existing employees. Because of such increase, the members of the petitioner are severely affected as their right of employment has been denied. It is also alleged that the above Act is invalid and illegal.
The writ petitioner has not been able to make out any justiciable cause for scrutiny of this Court. The petitioner has to establish affectation of right by the action of Government increasing the retirement age. The petitioner’s right to get equal opportunity in the matter of public employment is not denied by the impugned Act. Moreover, the right to get employment is not a fundamental right and not even a statutory right. Right is guaranteed to the citizen of India to get equal opportunity in the public employment. The Act is framed as a matter of policy and to see that the public interest is protected. There must be a sound logic and reason for increasing this age and reasonableness in reason cannot be gone into by this Court.
It is well settled law that a rule being a subordinate legislation can be challenged on three grounds, namely, legislative competency, violation of any provision of the Constitution and violation of any statute under which the Statute was enacted.
It is not argued that the State Government has no legislative competency to amend the Act and according to us, this rule increasing the age of retirement is not in violation of the Constitution.
We, therefore, dismiss the writ petition summarily.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand closed. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J Date: 10.11.2014 va