1. Recruitment for Assistant Director — Dispute over applicability of recruitment rules regarding age limits and the validity of a five-year relaxation limit for government servants. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 873
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : Sujata V.Manohar
Union Of India
Versus
Shivbachan Rai
Case No. : 4026 of 1993
Date of Decision : 8/27/98
Prescribing age limits and the extent of relaxation for recruitment are matters of government policy under Article 309 of the Constitution and cannot be deemed arbitrary or unreasonable under Article 14.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 309 - Recruitment Rules - Age limit and relaxation - Prescribing age limits and the extent of relaxation for a post are essentially matters of policy - Government is entitled to prescribe such limits or the extent of relaxation while framing rules under the proviso to Article 309 - Such prescriptions cannot be termed arbitrary or unreasonable. (Para 6)
(B) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Arbitrariness - Absence of a limit on the extent of relaxation in recruitment rules may lead to arbitrariness in the exercise of power, whereas a prescribed limit ensures consistency. (Para 6)
Facts of the case:
A candidate for a post via direct recruitment was found overage despite a 5-year relaxation provided for government servants under the applicable rules. The candidate contended that earlier rules, which did not specify a maximum limit for relaxation, were still applicable. The Tribunal held the 5-year limit in the current rules to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The candidate was subsequently appointed provisionally, subject to the outcome of the appeal.
Findings of Court:
The current rules replaced the earlier rules and govern the recruitment. The prescription of an age limit and the extent of relaxation are policy matters and not arbitrary. The provisional appointment does not create a vested right as it was expressly subject to the court's decision.
Issues: Whether the rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, which limit age relaxation to 5 years for government servants, are arbitrary or unreasonable.
Ratio Decidendi: The determination of age limits and the extent of relaxation for recruitment is a matter of government policy. Such rules framed under Article 309 are not arbitrary or unreasonable. Furthermore, a lack of a specified limit on relaxation is more likely to lead to arbitrariness than a defined limit.
Result: The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and the application filed by the respondent before the Tribunal is dismissed. The appeal is allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Contention that earlier recruitment rules without relaxation limits remained in force and that prescribing a maximum relaxation period is arbitrary and violative of Article 14. (Para 3 )
3. Prescribing age limits and relaxation extents are policy matters under Article 309; subsequent rules supersede earlier ones; provisional appointments subject to litigation are not absolute. (Para 6 , 7 )
4. Prescribing age limits and the extent of relaxation for recruitment under the proviso to Article 309 is a matter of policy and not arbitrary. (Para 6 )
5. Appeal allowed — Order of the Tribunal set aside — Application dismissed. (Para 8 )
6. Is the prescription of a specific age limit or a limit on age relaxation for government servants arbitrary?
No. Prescribing age limits and deciding the extent of relaxation are essentially matters of policy. The government is entitled to prescribe such limits while framing rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, and such prescriptions are not considered arbitrary or unreasonable. (Para 6 )
7. Does a provisional appointment made subject to the outcome of a pending legal appeal grant the appointee a permanent right to the post?
No. If an appointment is expressly made provisional and subject to the outcome of a pending appeal, the appointee is aware that their right to the post depends on the court's final decision, and the appointment can be disturbed accordingly. (Para 7 )
8. What is the effect of new recruitment rules on the eligibility of candidates when they replace older rules?
When new rules are framed to govern recruitment, the eligibility of candidates must be decided based on the current rules in force, as the new rules replace the previous ones. (Para 6 )
(1) AT the material time the respondent was holding the post of Hatchery Officer in the Central Poultry Breeding Farms under the Ministry of Agriculture.
(2) ON 15-2-1990 the Union Public Service Commission advertised for direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Director in the Central Poultry Breeding Farms under the Ministry of Agriculture. Under the advertisement the prescribed age for the candidates was not exceeding 35 years as on 31-5-1990, relaxing up to 5 years for government servants. This condition relating to age of the candidates was in accordance with the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution on 29-3-1985 regulating the method of recruitment to the post of Director and Assistant Director (Group A posts in the Central Poultry Breeding Farms, under the Ministry of Agriculture). The said Rules of 1985, inter alia, prescribe the age limit for direct recruits to the post of Assistant Director. The Rules state: under column 6 which pertains to age limits for direct recruits, "not exceeding 35 years (relaxable for government servants up to 5 years in accordance with the instructions and orders issued by the Central Government)".
(3) THE respondent was overage even after taking into consideration the relaxation of 5 years granted under the Rules. Therefore, he was not called for an interview. Thereupon, the respondent filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi claiming that the earlier recruitment rules prescribed under the notification of 16-11-1976 were still in force, since they were not expressly superseded by the notification prescribing new rules dated 29-3-1985. Under the earlier rules, while the age of recruitment for the post of Assistant Director by direct recruitment was 35 years, it was relaxable in the case of government servants. The rules did not prescribe any limit up to which such relaxation could be granted. The Tribunal, by the impugned order has accepted the plea of the respondent, holding that the maximum period prescribed for relaxation, namely, 5 years in the Rules of 1985 is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
(4) DURING the pendency of his application before the Central Administrative Tribunal and by virtue of interim orders passed therein the respondent was called for an interview for the post of Assistant Director on 8-2-1991 by the Union Public Service Commission. The letter calling the respondent for interview clearly states as follows:
"THIS call is being issued in compliance with the direction of the Honble Central Administrative Tribunal, Principle Bench, New Delhi, dated 4-2-1991, and is without prejudice to the Commissions stand with respect to your candidature for the post in question."
(5) THEREAFTER the respondent was selected by the Union Public Service Commission. During the pendency of the present appeal the respondent, on 7-3-1994 had been appointed as Assistant Director as a direct recruit with effect from 24-1-1994 until further orders. The appointment notification further states:
"THIS appointment is provisional and subject to the outcome of SLP (C) No; 3446 of 1993 pending in the Supreme Court of India."
(6) THE only question that we are required to consider is whether the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and dated 29-3-1985 whereby age relaxation up to 5 years is permitted in the case of government servants can be considered as arbitrary or unreasonable. Prescribing of any age limit for a given post, as also deciding the extent to which any relaxation can be given if an age limit is prescribed, are essentially matters of policy. It is, therefore, open to the Government while framing rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution to prescribe such age limits or to prescribe the extent to which any relaxation can be given. Prescription of such limit or the extent of relaxation to be given, cannot be
