IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY.J.
Ajay Kumar Yadav And Another – Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others – Respondent
Writ A No. 7783, 8001, 8082, 8619 of 2022
Decided on : 11-08-2022
AGE RELAXATION - RECRUITMENT PROCESS - RULES, 1991 - ADVERTISEMENT CLAUSES - DEVINA SHARMA CASE - SUSHIL KUMAR SINGH CASE - VIJAY KUMAR SINGH CASE
Fact of the Case:
The case involved petitions related to the recruitment process for the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer Exam -2022. The petitioners challenged the cut-off date for maximum age, arguing that it should be 1.7.2021 instead of 1.7.2022 due to the recruitment process being commenced after four years, resulting in many candidates becoming over-aged.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the State cannot be faulted for not conducting the recruitment examination during the Covid-19 pandemic, and the petitioners were not denied their legitimate right to participate in the examination. The court also emphasized the definition of 'Year of Recruitment' and 'Age' as per the Rules, 1991, and upheld the cut-off date fixed by the State.
Issues: The main issue was the interpretation of the rules and clauses of the advertisement regarding the cut-off date for maximum age in the recruitment process for the Assistant Prosecution Officer Exam -2022.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Rules, 1991, and previous judgments such as Devina Sharma, Sushil Kumar Singh, and Vijay Kumar Singh to determine the legality and regularity of fixing the reckoning date in terms of the date of advertisement.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no illegality and irregularity in fixing the reckoning date in terms of the date of advertisement, i.e., 1.7.2022.
JUDGMENT :
1. All the above referred petitions involves same issue, therefore, are decided by a common judgment. For reference, prayers of the leading writ petition are mentioned hereinafter :-
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.03 to accept the application form of the petitioners for Assistant Prosecution Exam.-2022 (ADVT. NO.A-3/E-1/2022) dated 21.04.2022."
2. Heard Shri Somendra Singh, learned counsel for petitioners in Writ A No.7783 & 8001 of 2022, Shri Abhishek Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for petitioner in Writ A No.8619 of 2022, Shri Vikram Bahadur Singh, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Lal Dev Chaurasiya, Advocate holding brief of Shri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3.
3. Learned counsel for parties are in agreement that this writ petition involves interpretation of legal provision as well as clauses of advertisement of recruitment process, therefore, writ petitions could be decided without exchange of pleadings.
4. All the petitioners are candidates of recruitment process for the post of Assistant Prosecution Officer Exam -2022 (Advt. No. A-3/E-1/2022, dated 21.4.2022).
5. Shri Somendra Singh, learned counsel for petitioners submitted that no recruitment process for Prosecuting Officers could be conducted after 2018 and after four years now in 2022, present recruitment process is commenced. During 4 years, many candidates have became over aged and by fixing cut off date for maximum age of 40 years to be 1.7.2022, respondents have declined petitioner's legitimate right to participate in the examination and cut off date for maximum age ought to be 1.7.2021 and in this regard, learned counsel relied upon definition of 'Year of Recruitment' (Rule 3(I) of U.P. Prosecuting Officers Service Rules, 1991 (hereinafterreferredtoas'theRules,1991’) which states that "means a period of twelve months commencing from the first day of July of a calendar year".
6. 'Age' is defined in Rule 10 of the Rules, 1991 that :-
Provided that the upper age limit in the case of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled tribes and such other categories as may be notified by the Government from time to time shall be greater by such number of yeas as may be specified."
7. Clause 11 of Advertisement is also mentioned hereinafter :-
(i) Candidates must have attained the age of 21 years and must not have crossed the age of 40 years on July 1, 2022 i.e. they must have not been born earlier than 2nd July, 1982 and not later than July 1, 2001. For PH candidates, the maximum age limit is 55 years i.e. they must have not been born before 02 July, 1967,
(ii) Relaxation in Upper Age Limit:
(a) Upper age limit shall be greater by five years for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes of U.P., Scheduled Tribes of U.P., Other Backward Classes of U.P., Skilled players of up classified Games, State Govt. employees of U.P. including the teachers/Staff of Basic Shiksha Parishad of U.P. and teachers/Staff of the Govt. Aided Madhyamik Vidyalayas of U.P. i.e. they must have not been born before 2nd July 1977
(b) Upper age limit shall also be greater by 3 years + period of service rendered in army for the emergency commissioned officers/short service commission officers/Ex-Army personnels of U.P
(c) Upper age limit shall be greater by 15 year's for P.H. candidates of U.P."
8. Learned counsel further submitted that date of Advertisement was 21.5.2022, th
High Court of Delhi vs. Devina Sharma; (2022) 4 SCC 643
'Malik Mazar Sultan Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission' reported in [2006 (9) SCC 507]
Malik Mazhar Sultan (3) vs Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State's decision in fixing the cut-off date for maximum age in accordance with the rules and the date of advertisement cannot be interfere....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that petitioners cannot claim age relaxation based on alleged promises or inaction of the Government, and the court emphasized that the action of t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to age relaxation for appearing in recruitment examinations is subject to specific provisions and factual considerations, and ....
The discretion of the rule-making authority or employer to fix a cut-off date for determining the maximum or minimum age for a post, and the court's reluctance to interfere with such decisions unless....
The court affirmed that exceptional circumstances may necessitate a one-time relaxation of recruitment age limits to ensure fairness, particularly due to delays caused by the pandemic.
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.