[1.0] As common question of law and facts arise in this group of Appeals and they arise out of the common judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge in respective Special Civil Applications, all these Letters Patent Appeals are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. [1.1] All these Appeals under clause 15 of the Letters Patent have been preferred by the respective appellants – original petitioners challenging the impugned common judgment and order dated 12.12.2005 passed by the learned single Judge in Special Civil Application No.23814 of 2005 with Special Civil Application Nos.23815 of 2005 to 23821 of 2005 by which the learned single Judge has dismissed the said special civil applications in which the respective petitioners prayed to direct the respondent Authority to relax/extend the upper age limit for the post of PSI (Unarmed) by a further period of five years i.e. upto 33 years instead of 28 years as per the advertisement dated 10.05.2005.
[1.3] At the outset it is required to be noted that present Letter Patent Appeals are of the year 2006 arising out of the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge in the year 2005 with respect to the advertisement issued in the year 2005. Today, when the present Appeals are taken up for final hearing and though they are called out twice and despite the intimation to the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants, none has remained present and therefore, this Court has no other alternative but to proceed further with the hearing of the present Letters Patent Appeals exparte.
[2.0] That the respondent Authority published the advertisement dated 28.04.2005 inviting the applications for the post of PSI (Unarmed) and in the said advertisement the upper age limit was fixed at 28 years. It appears that at the relevant time none of the appellants – original petitioners either challenged the upper age limit of 28 years or made any grievance with respect to fixing 28 years as upper age limit. It appears that the State Government by Notification dated 29.09.2005 amended the Gujarat Civil Services Classification and Recruitment (General) Rules, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules”) by inserting Rule 16E by which the upper age limit prescribed for appointment through competitive examination held for the purpose or by direct selection, to such service or post shall be relaxed for 5 years as far as it relates to the advertisement given by the Gujarat Public Service Commission and all other recruiting authorities or agencies during the period from 17.08.2005 to 16.08.2006. At this stage it is required to be noted that in the meantime the petitioners challenged the action of the respondents by way of filing Special Civil Application No.10598 of 2005 as a Public Interest Litigation, however, in view of the Notification dated 29.09.2005, the petitioners withdrew the said Special Civil Application with a liberty to make representation and the Division Bench disposed of the said Special Civil Application as withdrawn with above liberty. It appears that thereafter the respective petitioners made representation to the State Government to relax the upper age limit for a further period of 5 years and by communication dated 16.11.2005, the said representation has been turned down by observing that the advertisement inviting applications for the post of PSI (Unarmed) has been issued much prior to the Notification dated 29.09.2005 i.e. prescribed period mentioned in the notification, the request of the petitioners to relax the upper age for a further period of 5 years has been rejected.
[2.1] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the communication dated 16.11.2005 rejecting the representation of the petitioners to relax the upper age limit by a further period of 5 years with respect to the advertisement dated 28.04.2005 inviting the applications for the post of PSI (Unarmed), the appellants herein – original petitioners preferred Special Civil Application Nos.23814 of 2005 to 23821 of 2005 and by impugned common judgment and order, the learned single Judge has dismissed the aforesaid Special Civil Applications.
[2.2] Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge in aforesaid Special Civil Application Nos.23814 of 2005 to 23821 of 2005 dismissing the same and not granting the relief to the original petitioners directing the respondents to extent the upper age limit by a further period of 5 years with the respect to the advertisement dated 28.04.2005, the appellants herein – original petitioners have preferred the present Letters Patent Appeals.
[3.0] Having heard Ms. C.M. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the State and considering the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge and the memo of the petition and Letters Patent Appeal, it is an admitted position that the advertisement inviting the applications for the post of PSI (Unarmed) has been published on 28.04.2005 prescribing the upper age limit at 28 years. It is also an admitted position that under the Notification dated 29.09.2005 by which Rule No.16E was inserted in Rules, the State Government relaxed the upper age limit by a further period of 5 years with respect to the advertisement issued by the GPSC and other recruitment authorities/agencies during the period from 17.08.2005 to 16.08.2006. Therefore, the advertisement in question dated 28.04.2005 does not fall within the period prescribed under the Notification dated 29.09.2005. It is required to be noted at this stage that petitioners have not challenged the said Notification dated 29.09.2005 restricting and/or providing the relaxation in upper age limit with respect to the advertisement issued during the period from 17.08.2005 to 16.08.2006. It is also required to be noted at this stage that even under the advertisement dated 28.04.2005, the last date for submitting the forms was 16.06.2005. Nothing is on record that even prior to 16.06.2005, the appellants herein – original petitioners challenged the fixation of upper age limit of 28 years in the advertisement dated 28.04.2005 or even made any grievance with respect to the same and/or requested for relaxation in upper age limit.
[3.1] Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and observing that as such it is the policy decision of the Government whether to grant relaxation in upper age limit or not and considering the above, when the learned single Judge has dismissed the aforesaid Special Civil Applications, by refusing to grant any relief to the petitioners directing the State to provide/grant relaxation in upper age limit by a further period of 5 years with respect to the advertisement dated 28.04.2005, it cannot be said that the learned single Judge has committed any error which calls for interference of this Court in exercise of powers under the Letters Patent. We are in complete agreement with the reasoning and the view expressed by the learned single Judge while dismissing the aforesaid Special Civil Applications. At this stage it is required to be noted that in the meantime, 7 years have passed by now and further recruitment might have taken place.
[4.0] In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all the present Letters Patent Appeals fail and the same deserve to be dismissed and are, accordingly, dismissed.
Sd/ (M.R. SHAH, J.) Sd/ (S.H. VORA, J.) Ajay