IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

WP(S) No. 4907 of 2015

Wth
WP(S) No.4908 of 2015
----
Aftab Adil ... … Petitioner in WPS No.4907/2015
Varun Kumar Mahto Petitioner in WPS No.4908/2015
-Versus-
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry and Fisheries,
Government of Jharkhand,Ranchi
3.Jharkhand Public Service Commission through its Chairman,
Circular Road, Ranchi
4.The Controller of Examination, Jharkhand Public Service
Commission through its Chairman, Circular Road, Ranchi.
... ... Respondents in both the cases.
----
CORAM :HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
----
For the Petitioners :Mr.J.J.Sanga
For the Respondents :Mr. D.K.Dubey, Sr.SC I & S. Piprawall
----

02- 12.10.2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

In both the writ petitions, petitioners, who belong to BC I category,,

seek age relaxation to appear in the selection process for the post of

Veterinary Doctor under Advertisement No.9/2015 issued by the

Jharkhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “JPSC”).

Under clause 6 of the advertisement the minimum age prescribed in any

category is 22 years while age limit prescribed in respect of BC I and II

category is 37 years with five years relaxation. The dates within which

candidates if born would be eligible for the said category also clarified

being 1.8.1976 to 1.8.1991. The prayer for relaxation of age is being made

by both the petitioners, who admittedly have become overage by that

reckoning of age, on the basis of long interregnum in any such

recruitment process on the post of Veterinary Doctor. It is submitted that

petitioners, who are otherwise qualified having graduate degree in

Veterinary Science from the recognized Birsa Agricultural University could

have been eligible if relaxation in age be given in the matter of recruitment

process taken after a long period and given them them the opportunity to

participate along with other candidates. Learned counsel for the petitioners

has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of

Sanjeev Kumar Sahay Vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in (2008) 3

 2.

JCR 267 and in the case of Subodh Kumar Jha Vs. State of Jharkhand,

reported in (2005) 3 JLJR 622 to seek relaxation of age. On these

grounds counsel for the petitioners has supported the prayer of the

petitioners.

Learned counsel for the State and JPSC both submit that fixation of

upper age limit in the matter of recruitment of any employee is within the

policy domain of the Executive/Employer and unless it is shown arbitrary

or irrational, no interference is warranted. It is submitted that any delay or

long interval in such recruitment exercise cannot be made a ground to

seek relaxation in age limit, which is prescribed in terms of the Department

of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Circular bearing

memo no.2096 dated 25.04.2011 for such recruitment exercise under the

respondent-Government. It is also submitted that reckoning of age is being

made on 1.8.2013 which itself is in the nature of the benefit of two years to

all candidates falling in the zone of consideration. Both the petitioners

have crossed the upper age limit even by the said cut off date and cannot

be considered to be eligible under the terms and conditions of the

advertisement, which are itself not under challenge. They have relied upon

judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Neeraj Kumar and another Vs. State

of Jharkhand and others, WP(S) No.4758 of 2015 dated 6.10.2015 in

respect of Advertisement No.2/2015 issued by the JPSC for appointment

of Specialist Doctors. They have also relied upon judgment in the case of

Shailesh Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand and others, WP(S) No.5867 of

2015 dated 7.10.2015 in respect of Advertisement No.6/2015 issued by

the JPSC for the purpose of direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers

(Civil/Mechanical) in the Works Department under the State Government.

It is submitted that identical grounds were raised and considered by this

Court while declining interference.

I have considered the rival submissions of the parties in the light of

material facts pleaded and also scrutinized the legal grounds urged for
 3.

seeking age relaxation. It appears that the fixation of upper age limit is on

the basis of uniform policy decision of the Department of Personnel

Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha. In the matter of such recruitment,

fixation of age limit are in the domain of executive policy and unless they

are shown to be arbitrary or without any rational nexus to the object

sought to be justified, no interference can be made in exercise of powers

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The interregnum in the

matter of recruitment by any employer or State instrumentality cannot be

reason to relax the age in one or other recruitment exercise, which is

governed by uniform policy decision of the State Government such as

circular dated 25.04.2011. Reliance of the petitioners on the judgments

rendered in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Sahay Vs. State of Jharkhand,

reported in (2008) 3 JCR 267 (supra) and Subodh Kumar Jha Vs. State

of Jharkhand, reported in (2005) 3 JLJR 622 (Supra), however, are in a

different context and would not give benefit to the case of the petitioners in

the instant exercise.

Therefore, no interference can be made in the instant writ petitions,

which are, accordingly, dismissed.

(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. )

Pandey