Arun Mishra, J. -- 1. The petitioner has challenged the vires of Rule 8 (1) (a) and Column No.3 of Scheduled III of Madhya Pradesh Public Prosecution (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1991') which prescribes the minimum age limit to be 24 years for appearance in the examination for the post of Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer (in short 'ADPO').

2. The petitioner has submitted that she had passed five years LLB course (P/1) on 16.7.2008 with 1st division. On 29.12.2008, advertisement (P/2) was pablished in Rozgar Nirman Employment newspaper for the post of ADPOs. 200 posts of ADPOs were advertised. Qualification for the afore-referred posts was the degree in law from any recognized University or equivalent and persons possessing 1st division or two years practice at Bar or higher qualification shall be preferred.

3. Rule 8 (1) (a) of the Rules of 1991 provides that the candidate must have attained the age as specified in Column (3) of Schedule III and below the age specified in Column (4) of the said schedule. In Column (3) of Schedule III of the Rules of 1991, the minimum age limit prescribed is 24 years whereas maximum age limit prescribed is 30 years.

4. The petitioner has submitted that fixation of age of 24 years is illegal and arbitrary whereas fixation of minimum age limit should be 21 years and maximum age limit should be 35 years. The petitioner was of 23 years and five months of age. For appearance in Civil Judges examination, the minimum age limit fixed is 21 years. Mind has not been applied while fixing the minimum age limit resulting into unjust and arbitrary operation of the Rules of 1991. Experience of 2 year's practice at Bar is not mandatory. Thus, deprivation to the candidates between 21 to 24 years is illegal.

5. A return has been filed by respondent No. 1/State contending that an incumbent can pass class 12th examination at the minimum age of 17 years and thereafter three year's are required for graduation and three years for obtaining degree in law. Thus, fixation of age as 24 years is in accordance with law.

6. In Writ Petition No. 1710/2008, D.R. Sharma v. State of M.P. and others, an incumbent has assailed the age limit of 35 years, which has been dismissed vide order (R/l) dated 5.9.2008, the Gwalior Bench of this Court has opined that parity cannot be sought by the petitioner vis a vis to the Civil Judges as the posts of Civil Judge are different than that of ADPOs.

7. A return has also been filed by respondent No. 2/Public Service Commission supporting Rule 8 (1) (a) of the Rules of 1991.

8. Shri Parag Chaturvedi, counsel for petitioner has submitted that an incumbent having 1st division in LLB course has to be given priority. Fixation of age of 24 years for the post of ADPOs becomes arbitrary when for the post of Civil Judge, the minimum age limit prescribed is 21 years. There is no rhyme or reason to fix the minimum age limit for the post of ADPOs as 24 years.

9. Shri P.K. Kaurav, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No. l/State has supported Rule 8 (1) (a) of the Rules of 1991 as well as fixation of minimum age. He has also submitted that the posts in question are different. Parity between different services cannot be claimed. Fixation of age is within domain of policy decision of the State. It is not amenable for interference in writ jurisdiction.

10. Rule 8 of the Rules of 1991 is quoted below :

"Rule 8 Condition of eligibility for direct recruitment.

In order to be eligible to be selected, a candidate must satisfy the following conditions, namely:-

(1) Age-(a) He must have attained the age as specified in column (3) of Scheduled III and not attained the age as specified in column (4) of the said Schedule on the first day of January next following the date of commencement of selection

(b) xxx xxx xxx xxx

SCHEDULE III

(See Rule 8)

Name of Name of Post Minimum Maximum Educational

Department in the service age limit age limit qualifica