Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Abhay Ahuja, M.M. Sathaye, JJ.
Raju Dhondiram Akrupe - Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 6371 of 2023
Decided On : 26-05-2023
AGE RELAXATION - GOVERNMENT SERVICE RECRUITMENT - Bombay Civil Services, Classification and Recruitment Rules, 1939; Government Circular dated 1/11/2003; Article 309 of the Constitution of India - The court analyzed the applicability of the 1939 Rules regarding age relaxation for government servants in the context of recruitment by nomination. It concluded that the 1939 Rules do not provide for age relaxation in cases of nomination, and the subsequent Recruitment Rules of 2022 supersede earlier provisions, establishing a clear age limit for candidates. The court emphasized the necessity of statutory rules in public employment and upheld the MAT's decision to deny the petitioner's request for age relaxation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a 39-year-old Food Safety Officer, sought to quash an interim order from the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal that denied his request for age relaxation to participate in the Combined Civil Services Preliminary Examination 2023, citing the Bombay Civil Services, Classification and Recruitment Rules, 1939 and a government circular.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the 1939 Rules do not address selection by nomination, which was introduced post-independence. It noted that the Recruitment Rules of 2022 do not provide for age relaxation for government servants, thus supporting the MAT's decision to reject the petitioner's application for interim relief.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to age relaxation under the 1939 Rules for participation in the examination based on his status as a government servant and the applicability of subsequent recruitment rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the 1939 Rules do not apply to recruitment by nomination and that the Recruitment Rules of 2022, which set a clear age limit, supersede earlier provisions. The court emphasized that public employment is governed by statutory rules, and without explicit provisions for age relaxation, such requests cannot be granted.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal was upheld, disallowing the petitioner's request for age relaxation.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
ABHAY AHUJA, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of Counsel for the parties.
2. By this Petition, Petitioner is seeking to quash and set aside interim order dtd. 10/5/2023 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) in Original Application No.345 of 2023 rejecting Petitioner's interim application in the said Original Application for age relaxation to participate in the selection process by nomination to a higher post by appearing in the examination which is going to be held on 4/6/2023.
3. Petitioner is working as a Food Safety Officer and his age today, statedly, is 39 years and in order to appear for the Combined Civil Services Preliminary Examination 2023 conducted by Respondent no.4 - Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) to be held on 4/6/2023, he is seeking age relaxation on the basis of Bombay Civil Services, Classification and Recruitment Rules, 1939 (the "1939 Rules"). Petitioner has also placed reliance on the Government Circular dtd. 1/11/2003 and the decision of this Court in the case of Anil Motilal Nimbhure vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, [Writ Petition No.6179 of 2007, decided on 7/1/2008]. to submit that the said 1939 Rules though framed prior to independence and before framing of the Constitution of India and despite the provision of Article 395 of the Constitution, are holding the field.
4. It is Mr.Nagrani's case that, Petitioner being a government servant, is entitled to upper age relaxation pursuant to the 1939 Rules, and therefore, even though he has crossed the age limit for general category of 38 years, being 39 years of age, in view of the fact that the said Rules are still holding the field, he is entitled to appear for the examination, which is going to be held on 4/6/2023. Mr.Nagrani has relied upon Rule 7 of the 1939 Rules with respect to qualification in respect of age and education of the candidates for appointment in the Government Service and would submit that Note 3B thereunder carves out an exception in the case of a Government servant, to mean that there shall not be an upper age limit for the Government servant. The said Rule 7 and Note 3B are usefully quoted as under:
(1) Permanent Government servants
(2) Temporary Government servants whether officiating in (I) substantive, (ii) deputation or (iii) leave vacancies, if they are in continuous service for not less than six months on the date of their applications. (Government Notification, Political and Services Department, No.1586/34, dated the 1 st December 1943)."
5. Learned Counsel would submit that based on these 1939 Rules, the State Government had issued a Circular dtd. 1/11/2003 by which it was decided not to grant complete age relaxation to the government servant for selection on the basis of nomination and took decision to grant age relaxation to the extent of upper age limit including the number of years of experience or relaxation up to the age of 45/50 years on the basis of requirement and specialization of posts. He would submit that the said Circular is in breach of the said 1939 Rules as the said Rules of 1939 contemplate complete age relaxation in favour of the government servant, the said 1939 Rules having statutory force.
6. The Petitioner had therefore filed an Original Application before the MAT seeking complete age relaxation for selection on the basis of nomination for in-service candidates based on the Rules of 1939 read with Government Circular dtd. 1/11/2003 and the decisio
The court affirmed that special age limits for specific categories, like Ex-Servicemen, cannot be combined with general relaxations, maintaining the prescribed upper age of 50 years.
The discretionary power of the appointing authority in granting age relaxation and the need for uniform eligibility criteria to avoid arbitrary selections.
Point of Law : Respondent authority has failed to exercise its power while dealing with the application for relaxation of the age, preferred by the petitioners.
The Government has power to grant relaxation in upper age limit on its own motion or upon getting intimation from any genuine or bona fide source can grant such relaxation subject to the condition th....
Vacancies arising before the amendment of recruitment rules are governed by the old rules, allowing eligible candidates age relaxation.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
