IMPORTANT POINT
The upper age limit for competitive examinations is a matter of eligibility determined by the employer, and courts cannot direct changes to such limits under Article 226 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

Ali Mohammad Magrey, J.

1. The Petitioners, stated to be aspirants for J&K Combined Competitive Examination (JKAS), are aggrieved of Order dated 19th of May, 2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in OA No. 436/2022, whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal has declined to pass direction upon the Respondents to consider the averments made by the applicants/Petitioners and has only directed the Respondents to dispose of the representation made by the Petitioners by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a short period of four days, i.e., by 23rd of May, 2022 on the grounds detailed out in the Petition. Simultaneously, the Petitioners had also sought a direction in the name of the Respondents thereby directing them to raise the upper age limit prescribed for General Category candidates to 37 years and 40 years for Reserved and in-service candidates. The grievance so projected by the Petitioners for the relief claimed was having reference to: (i) non-conduct of the J&K Combined Competitive Examination for the year 2020-21; and (ii) the difficulties suffered by the aspirants on account of COVID-19 Pandemic, coupled with the fact that the socio-political situation did not remain favourable during the aforesaid period.

2. Mr. N.A. Beigh, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Petitioners, while reiterating the grounds projected in the Petition for the relief claimed, has referred to the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case bearing 'Civil Appeal No. 2016 of 2022 arising out of SLP (C) No. 4452 of 2022' titled 'High Court of Delhi v. Devina Sharma' and submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid Judgment, has already granted the benefit of enhancement of upper age limit to the candidates who had applied for Delhi Judicial Service Examination for the year 2022 under similar circumstances as involved herein this case. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the aforesaid Judgment passed by the Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, the Tribunal had no option but to apply the said Judgment to the case of the Petitioners and direct extension of upper age limit in the case of the Petitioners and allow them to compete in the process of examination. It is pleaded that the Government has not considered the claim made by the Petitioners in tune with the mandate of Jammu and Kashmir Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2008, more specifically proviso to Clause (ii) to Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2008.

3. While the matter was being considered, we thought it proper to seek the assistance of the learned Advocate General. The learned Advocate General, accordingly, appeared before the Court and advanced his arguments on the issue. It is submitted that the Judgment of the Supreme Court, as referred to and relied upon by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned Advocate General, while inviting the attention of the Court to the Judgment aforesaid, submitted that the directions have been passed by the Supreme Court in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India which power is not available with the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. We have heard Mr. Beig, the learned Senior counsel on behalf of the Petitioners; as well as the learned Advocate General. We have also gone through the pleadings on record and have considered the matter.

5. On an examination of the pleadings on record, what emerges is that the Petitioners, on the strength of their claim, appear to have made a representation before the Government through the Chief Secretary seeking raising of upper age limit under different categories as mentioned therein with the application of proviso to Clause (ii) to Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir C