Back
2017 Supreme(Ori) 4
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK
A.K. RATH, J.
Smt. Manani Bariha – Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and others – Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.18801 of 2016
Decided On : 02-01-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Pradip Kumar Ray
For the Opposite Parties : Miss Samapika Mishra
The discretion of the Rule-making Authority or the employer in fixing a cut-off date for age limit and the requirement for it not to be deemed arbitrary unless wholly unreasonable.
Headnote:
Age Limit - Advertisement for Anganwadi Worker - No.145/SWCD dtd. 02.05.2007 - The court discussed the provisions of the revised guidelines issued by the Government of Odisha in Women and Child Development Department, which stipulated the age limit for the post of Anganwadi Worker to be between 18 to 42 years. The court also referred to the decision of the apex Court in the case of Dr. Ami Lal Bhat vs. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1997 SC 2964, which held that fixing a cut-off date for determining the maximum or minimum age required for a post is at the discretion of the Rule-making Authority or the employer, and cannot be deemed arbitrary unless it is wholly unreasonable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an advertisement fixing the age limit for the post of Anganwadi Worker, stating that the cut-off date for age limit was unreasonable and not in line with the previous guidelines.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the advertisement was issued in accordance with the revised guidelines of 2007, and the cut-off date for age limit was not arbitrary. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating it was without merit.
Issues: The main issue was the reasonableness of the cut-off date for age limit in the advertisement for the post of Anganwadi Worker.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that fixing a cut-off date for determining the maximum or minimum age required for a post is at the discretion of the Rule-making Authority or the employer, and cannot be deemed arbitrary unless it is wholly unreasonable.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, stating it was without merit.
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Rath, J.
By this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenge is made to the advertisement dated 17.9.2016 issued by the Child Development Project Officer, Khaprakhol, Dist.-Bolangir, opposite party no.4, fixing the age limit for the post of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Nandupala Anganwadi Centre.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the opposite party no.4 issued an advertisement on 17.9.2016 vide Annexure-1 to fill up the post of Anganwadi Worker in respect of Nandupala Anganwadi Centre. The petitioner, who has passed H.S.C. Examination, 2016 and belongs to scheduled tribe, applied for the same. She is otherwise eligible for the post. Due to the cut-off date fixing the age limit, her application was not considered.
3. Pursuant to issuance of notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party nos.2 and 4. It is stated that the advertisement dated 17.9.216 vide Annexure-1 was issued in accordance with the provisions laid down in the revised guidelines issued vide No.145/SWCD dtd. 02.05.2007 of Government of Odisha in Women and Child Development Department, wherein it has been stipulated that the applicant for the post of Anganwadi Worker should have attained 18 years of age but below 43 years in the first day of the year in which the application has been invited. Thus a candidate below 18 years of age as on 01.01.2016 is not eligible for the post of Anganwadi Worker. It is further stated that the date of birth of the petitioner is 24.06.1998 and she was below 18 years of age as on 01.01.2016 and as such, she is not eligible for the said post.
4. Heard Mr. Pradip Kumar Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner and Miss Samapika Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties.
5. Mr. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioner, argued with vehemence that fixing the minimum age limit as on 1.1.2016 is wholly unreasonable and the same has no nexus to the object sought to be achieved. He further submits that though the advertisement issued on 17.9.2016, but the cut-off date was fixed on 1.1.2016. There was a wide gap between the cut-off date and date of advertisement and as such the advertisement is liable to be quashed. He further submits that in the previous guidelines no such stipulation was there, but in the revised guidelines of 2007, the same has been inserted. He cited the decision of the apex Court in the case of Dr. Ami Lal Bhat vs. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1997 SC 2964.
6. Per contra, Miss S. Mishra, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-opposite parties, submits that the advertisement was issued pursuant to the revised guidelines dated 02.05.2007 of Government of Odisha in its Women and Child Development Department vide Annexure-A/4 annexed to the affidavit. Clause 2 of the said guidelines provides that the applicant will be a female candidate in the age group of 18 to 42 years. Furthermore, the candidate should have attained the age of 18 years, but not 43 years on the first day of the year in which the application has been invited. No challenge is made to the guidelines. She further submits that fixing a cut-off date with regard to age cannot be dubbed as arbitrary.
7. In Dr. Ami Lal Bhat (supra), the question arose before the apex Court as to 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 apex Court in paragraph 5 of the said report held that fixing of a cut off date for determining the maximum or minimum age prescribed for a post is not per se, arbitrary. 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. Cut off date cannot be fixed with any mathematical precision. As soon as a cut off date is fixed there will be some persons who
