Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8821 of 2018 Petitioner :- Pushpendra Kumar And 13 Others Respondent :- Staff Selection Commission And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhaskar Bhadra Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This petition is directed against an advertisement issued by the respondents for recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector. Advertisement is challenged on the ground that respondents have acted arbitrarily in changing the date from 1.1.2018 to 1.8.2018 for the purpose of determination of age, on account of which petitioner would be denied opportunity to apply. Submission is that maximum permissible age of recruitment was determined with reference to Ist January of the recruitment year which is now changed to Ist of August without any rationale or justification.
Sri S.P. Singh, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri Sabhajeet Singh, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the advertisement is not inconsistent with the rules and it is always a matter of discretion for the authorities to determine the cut off date. Reliance is placed upon the Division Bench decision of this Court in Writ-C No. 6128 of 2018 (Ayush Shukla and 12 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others), in which the Division Bench has observed that the determination of age for direct recruitment would be a matter for the Government to prescribe and cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Relevant portion of the Division Bench judgment reads as under:-
"It is settled law that age relaxation for direct recruitment could either be granted by the Government by prescribing it in the relevant rules and it is not open to the candidates to claim such relaxations as a matter or right.
The Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan and another Versus U.P. Public Service Commission and others3, held as under:
"17. The present controversy has been arisen as the advertisement issued by PSC stated that the candidates who were within the age on 1st July, 2001 and 1 July, 2002 shall be treated within age for the examination. Undoubtedly, the excluded candidates were of eligible age as per the advertisement but the recruitment to the service can only be made in accordance with the rules and the error, if any, in the advertisement cannot override the Rules and create a right in favour of a candidate if otherwise not eligible according to the Rules. The relaxation of age can be granted only if permissible under the Rules and not on the basis of the advertisement. If the interpretation of the Rules by PSC when it issued the advertisement was erroneous, no right can accrue on basis thereof. Therefore, the answer to the question would turn upon the interpretation of the Rules." (emphasis supplied) thus:
"Be that as it may, the High Court was not justified in taking the clock back to the period when unfilled vacancies were existing and holding that since the respondent was eligible on the date when vacancies fell vacant, she continued to be so till the time the vacancies are filled. Due to inaction on the part of the State Government in not filling the posts year-wise, the respondent cannot get a right to participate in the selection despite being over-aged".
In the ultimate analysis determination of age/age relaxation for direct recruitment, if to be granted, would be a matter for the Government to prescribe in the relevant rules, and beyond what has been prescribed, cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
Learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to point out any ground for holding that Rule 10 of Rules 2015 determining the maximum age at 22 years is capricious or whimsical in backdrop of the nature of appointment sought to be made under the Rules.
The writ petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed".
Submission is that no interference in the matter is warranted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated his argument in the rejoinder affidavit.
Having heard learned counsel for both the parties, this Court is of the view that unless the advertisement is shown to be inconsistent with any specific provision contained in the rules, this Court would not be justified in interfering with it. Matters of determination of age or fixing of cut off date, are matters of policy, which ordinarily is not to be interfered with by this court unless it is shown to be arbitrary. The mere fact that in previous advertisements, a different criteria was fixed to determine cut off date would not be a good ground to interfere with the change of date in this advertisement.
Writ Petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 28.3.2018 n.u.