IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAVI RANJAN, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, JJ.
Reena Kumari, D/o. Uchit Singh & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Jharkhand Public Service Commission & Ors. - Respondents
L.P.A. No.146 of 2021 With L.P.A. No.172 of 2021 With L.P.A. No.173 of 2021 With L.P.A. No.174 of 2021
Decided On : 25-08-2021
whether in policy decision High Court sitting under Article 226 of Constitution of India can interfere particularly in matter of fixation of age – Held, fact of given case is concerned, it is not in dispute that for one reason or the other the Combined Civil Services Competitive Examination could not be notified after 2016 i.e., up to the advertisement published on 26.02.2020 being Advertisement No.01/2020 clubbing together the vacancies of the year 2017, 2018 and 2019 fixing the cut-off date for calculating upper age limit as 01.08.2011 but the process of selection could not proceed as in the meanwhile, the State Government came out with a new Rule in the year 2021 in exercise of power conferred under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The said Rules, 2021 does not contain any provision of relaxation in the age as has also not been provided under the earlier Rule of the year 1951. The State Government has come up with a resolution on 05.02.2021 whereby and whereunder the relaxation in the age has been decided to be given fixing it for maximum age as on 01.08.2016 and for minimum age as on 01.03.2021. Thereafter, the earlier advertisement was cancelled and a new advertisement has been published being Advertisement No.01/2021 inviting online applications by merging the vacancies of the year 2017, 2018, 2019 and 2020 and in pursuance to the resolution dated 05.02.2021 the cut-off date for the maximum age has been fixed as 01.08.2016 and the minimum age as - Therefore, according to our considered view, such type of argument, as has been advanced by learned senior counsel appearing for the writ petitioners-appellants, is nothing but misconceived one as he cannot be allowed to argue contrary to his pleading and retract from the submission made by him either before the writ court or this Court that too without making any prayer or pleading in the writ petition. All along in the writ petition the case of the writ petitioners was to extend the benefit of relaxation of age as was there in the earlier advertisement, hence the same is rejected - Court after hearing at length almost formed the view that it will not interfere with the order impugned, Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that since the Rule of 2021 does not contain any provision for extending the benefit of relaxation, therefore, whatever relaxation has been provided in pursuance to the resolution dated 05.02.2021, the same may be held to be contrary to the statutory provision.
JUDGMENT :
With the consent of the parties, hearing of the matters has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and/or video quality.
2. It has been submitted by Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, that in all these appeals similar issues are involved, therefore, all the appeals may be heard together and may be disposed of by common order.
3. The same submission has been made by the learned counsel appearing for the State and the JPSC.
4. In view thereof and considering the fact that the issues involved in the four appeals are similar, all have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
5. These appeals preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent are directed against the order/judgment dated 15.03.2021, 13.04.2021 and 07.04.2021 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.864 of 2021, W.P.(S) No.1214 of 2021, W.P.(S) No.1186 of 2021 and W.P.(S) No.1055 of 2021 respectively wherein the issue raised pertains to issuance of following directions as per the prayer made in the writ petitions which read as under:-
ii. For a further declaration that there is an abrupt departure of cut-off date for counting the upper age limit for appearing at the Combined Graduate Level Civil Service Exam for Civil Service under State, by notification dated 05.02.2021 was without any valid reason, and, the apparent objective to mitigate the ouster from zone of consideration in non-holding of the examination due from previously existing continuity was broken without any valid reason thereby 5 years galloping jump has dampened the prospects of all such candidates due to non-compliance of previous Rule 3 (now 3(IV) of 2021).
Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petitions declining to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus for relaxation of the upper age limit for participation in the selection process of the 7th Combined Civil Services Competitive Examination to be conducted by Jharkhand Public Service Commission.
6. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petitions which require to be enumerated herein, read as under :-
It is the case of the writ petitioners that one advertisement being Advertisement No. 01/2020 was published on 26.02.2020 for Combined Civil Service Competitive Examination-2017, 2018 and 2019 in the State of Jharkhand, wherein suitable relaxation was given for computation of upper age limit as on 01.08.2011 for all the clubbed vacancies following the pattern adopted in earlier six consecutive yearly vacancies. However, due to Covid-19 pandemic, the said vacancy could not be finalized and in the meantime, the Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Examination Rules, 2021 was notified in the month of January, 2021 which was to be effective prospectively. Thereafter, the JPSC advertised Jharkhand Combined Civil Services Competitive Exam, 2021 through JPSC website. As per Clause 4 of the said advertisement, the upper age limit has to be calculated on the basis of the cut-off date as 01.08.2016.
It is the further case of the writ petitioners that it would be evident on examining the earlier rule vis-à-vis the new rule that the provision of clubbing the vacancies for two or more years together which has been made for the first time by reasons of the proviso to Rule 4 of the Rules, 2021 is dehors the rules itself.
It is the further case of the writ petitioners that if any vacancy arises in a particular year but the same could
The State of Andhra Pradesh v. T. Ramakrishna Rao and Others
Dr. Ami Lal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan and Others
Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Smt. Anand Kanwar and Others
K. Nagaraj and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another
State of Jharkhand and Others v. Ashok Kumar Dangi and Others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.