IMPORTANT POINT
Fixing of the cut off date with reference to the calendar year for determining the maximum age of a candidate who is to be considered for direct recruitment to a service under the State, can be considered as arbitrary only if it can be looked upon as so capricious or whimsical as to invite judicial interference and unless the date is grossly unreasonable, the Court would be reluctant to strike down such a cut off date.

Headnote:(i) Service law-Recruitment to a service-Determining maximum age of a candidate-Whether a Rule-making Authority can fix a cut off date with reference to calendar year for determining maximum age of a candidate who is to be considered for direct recruitment to a service under the State ?-(Yes)-Fixing of a cut off date can be considered as arbitrary only if it can be looked upon as so capricious or whimsical as to invite judicial interference-Unless date is grossly unreasonable, the court would be reluctant to strike down such a cut off date.
       Held, the fixing of a cut off date for determining the maximum or minimum age prescribed for a post is not, per se, arbitrary. Basically, the fixing of a cut off date for determining the maximum or minimum age required for a post, is in the discretion of the Rule-making Authority or the employer as the case may be. One must accept that such a cut off date cannot be fixed with any mathematical precision and in such a manner as would avoid hardship in all conceivable cases. As soon as a cut off date is fixed there will be some persons who fall on the right side of the cut off date and some persons who will fall on the wrong side of the cut off date. That cannot make the cut off date, per se, arbitrary unless the cut off date is so wide off the mark as to make it wholly unreasonable. In order to avoid uncertainly in respect of minimum or maximum age of a candidates, which may arise if such an age is linked to the process of selection which may take an uncertain time, it is desirable that such a cut off date should be with reference to a fixed date. Therefore, fixing an independent cut off date, far from being arbitrary, makes for certainty in determining the maximum age (Para 5)
       (ii) Service Law-Recruitment to a service-Rules providing cut off date for deciding maximum age prescribed for a candidate for appointment as the 1st day of January following date of application-Such a cut off date uniformly fixed under all Service Rules of State of Rajasthan-Whether such a date is arbitrary or unreasonable ?-(No)-Time gap between advertisement and cut off date is less than a year-Cut off date cannot be considered as unreasonable-Plea of making a cut off date dependant on last date for receiving applications-Not acceptable-Fixing such a cut off date makes it more subject to vagaries of department concerned and uncertain.
       Held : In the present case, the cut off date has been fixed by the State of Rajasthan under its Rules relating to various services with reference to the 1st of January following the year in which the applications are invited. All Service Rules are uniform on this point. Looking to the various dates on which different departments and different heads of administration may issue their advertisements for recruitment, a uniform cut off date has been fixed in respect of all such advertisements as 1st January of the year following. This is to make for certainty. Such a uniform date prescribed under all Service Rules and Regulations makes it easier for the prospective candidates to understand their eligibility for applying for the post in question. Such a date is not so wide off the mark as to be construed as grossly unreasonable or arbitrary. The time gap between the advertisement and the cut off date is less than a year. It takes into account the fact that after the advertisement time has to be allowed for receipt of applications, for their scrutiny, for calling candidates for interview, for preparing a panel of selected candidates and for actual appointment. To say that the only cut off date can be the last date for receiving applications, appears to be without any basis. In our view the cut off date which is fixed in the present case with reference to the beginning of the Calendar year following the date of application, cannot be considered as capricious or unreasonable. On the contrary, it is less prone to vagaries and is less uncertain. (Para 7)
       (iii) Rajasthan Medical (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962-Rule 8(A)-Vacancy occurred in September, 1987-It was advertised only in January, 1988-Appellant became overaged on 1st of January of following year-Fixing 1st of January following date of application as cut off date for determining maximum age of a candidate-Validity of-So long as advertisement is issued within a reasonable time, and there is no malafide delay -Action of appointing authority in issuing advertisement cannot be challenged simply because maximum age qualification fixed with reference to a fixed date. (Paras 8, 9)
       (iv) Service Law-Recruitment-Determining maximum age of a candidate by fixing cut off date-Power of age relaxation-Manner of exercise of.
       Held : The power of relaxation is required to be exercised public interest in a given case; as for example, if other suitable candidates are not available for the post, and the only candidate who is suitable has crossed the maximum age limit; or to mitigate hardship in a given case. Such a relaxation in special circumstances of a given case is to be exercised by the administration after referring that case to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. There cannot be any wholesale relaxation because the advertisement is delayed or because the vacancy occurred earlier especially when there is no allegation of any mala fides in connection with any delay in issuing an advertisement. This kind of power of wholesale relaxation would make for total uncertainty in determining the maximum age of a candidate. It might be unfair to a large number of candidates who might be similarly situated, but who may not apply, thinking that they are age barred. (Para 11)
       (v) Constitution of India-Art. 136-Recruitment to a service-Rules fixing cut off date for determining maximum age of a candidate-Dr. Mathur was over age on 1st of January of year following date of application-His application rejected by Rajasthan Public Service Commission-Writ petition-Plea made that his case was being considered by Government of Rajasthan for age relaxation-Interim order passed by High Court directing Service Commission to consider his application and interview him-Dr. Mathur was selected-His position being 1st in merit list-Order of appointment-Dismissal of SLP filed against the order-This Court had left question of law open-Candidate, second in merit also filed SLP challenging appointment of Dr. Mathur-Whether decision of Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Dr. Rajeev Mathur v. State, can be held final?-(No). (Paras 15 & 16)

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J.-Leave grated.

2. In all these appeals the common question which arises for consideration is whether a Rule-making Authority can fix a cut off date with reference to the calendar year for determining the maximum age of a candidate who is to be considered for direct recruitment to a service under the State. The petitions and appeals before us deal with different Rules of service in the State of Rajasthan pertaining to various services under the State. Some of the Rules which are under challenge before us are the Rajasthan Medical Services (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962. Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parisad Service Rules, 1959, Rajasthan Class V Services (Recruitment and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 1963, and Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971. All these Rules provide that the cut off date for deciding the maximum age prescribed for a candidate for appointment will be the 1st day of January following the date of application. The affected candidates who are before us contend that such a cut off date which is uniformly fixed under all the Service Rules of the State of Rajasthan, is arbitrary or unreasonable and must be struck down.

3. For the sake of convenience we are citing Rule 11(1) of the Rajasthan Medical Services (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 which came up for consideration in a writ petition filed by Dr. Rajeev Mathur before the Rajasthan High Court. The Rajasthan High Court held that the portion of Rule 11 which prescribes determination of the maximum age with reference to 1st of January following the last date fixed for receipt of applications, was arbitrary and unreasonable and struck it down. The appeal before us from this judgment and order is Civil Appeal No. 2691/91 which is filed by the candidate who was 2nd in the order of merit for that particular selection. Rule 11(1) provides as follows:-

"11(1):-A candidate for direct recruitment to a junior post enumerated in Part C of the Schedule must not have attained the age of 35 years on the first day of January following the last date fixed for receipt of applications.

..................................

Provided:

(1) That the upper age limit mentioned in sub-rules (1) and (2) above, may be relaxed by 5 years in exceptional cases by Government in consultation with the Commission."

The High Court held that the words "the first day of January following" in Rule 11(1) must be deleted.

4. Is such a cut off date fixed by the Rules applicable to the relevant service, arbitrary? It has been urged before us by the petitioners and/or appellants that the cut off date of 1st of January following the last date fixed for receipt of applications is arbitrary. The cut off date should only be fixed with reference to the last date of making the application in question. It is submitted before us that the date of 1st of January has no nexus with the application in question and, therefore, must be struck down.

5. This contention, in our view, is not sustainable. In the first place the fixing of a cut off date for determining the maximum or minimum age prescribed for a post is not, per se, arbitrary. Basically, the fixing of a cut off date for determining the maximum or minimum age required for a post, is in the discretion of the Rule-making Authority or the employer as the case may be. One must accept that such a cut off date cannot be fixed with any mathematical precision and in such a manner as would avoid hardship in all conceivable cases. As soon as a cut off date is fixed there will be some persons who fall on the right side of the cut off date and some persons who will fall on the wrong side of the cut off date. That cannot make the cut off date, per se, arbitrary unless the cut off date is so wide off the mark as to make it wholly unreasonable. This view was expressed by this Court in Union of India and another etc. v. M/s. Parameshwaran Match Works etc.1, and has been reiterated in subsequent cases. In the case of A.P.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(SC) 905

Cases Referred (3)