The discretion to fix a cut-off date for age requirements lies with the employer and is subject to limited judicial review under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Heard on the question of admission.

In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in fixing the upper age limit of 28 years as one of the eligibility criteria for recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector and Constable in the Police Department as well as Special Armed Force.

2. Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is a member of Other Backward Class community. The Inspector General of Police issued advertisements dated 25-12-2011 and 1-1-2012 respectively, inviting applications for recruitment to the posts of Sub Inspectors and General Constables. Paragraph 4. 1 of the advertisement provides that the age of the candidate as on 1-1-2012 should not be less than 18 years and should not be more than 28 years. The petitioner in the aforesaid factual backdrop has approached this Court.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that fixing of upper age limit as 28 years is arbitrary and unreasonable. It is further submitted that there is no nexus between fixing of upper age limit of 28 years with the object sought to be achieved. It is also urged that in other Departments of State Government like Transport, Excise, Jail and Home Guards, where the employees also perform the duties of Police, the upper age limit has been fixed as 35 years. Therefore, there is no justification to fix the upper age limit as 28 years. It is fairly submitted that petitioner had appeared in the examination, however, his candidature was rejected on the ground that he does not meet the eligibility criteria with regard to upper age limit.

4. I have considered the respective submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties. Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees to every citizen the right to equality before the law. It does not forbid different treatment of unequal’s. In Dr. Ami Lal Bhat Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, (1997) 6 SCC 614, it has been held that basically, 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. One must accept that such a cut-off date cannot be fixed with any mathematical precision and in such a manner as would avoid hardship in all conceivable cases. As soon as a cut-off date is fixed, there will be some persons who fall on the right side of the cut-off date and some persons who will fall on the wrong side of the cut-off date. That cannot make the cut-off date, per se, arbitrary unless the cut-off date is so wide off the mark as to make it wholly unreasonable. Similar view has been taken in Government of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. N. Subbarayudu and others, (2008) 14 SCC 702, wherein it has been held that the Court must not declare the choice of the employer to fix the cut-off date to be arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 unless the said cut-off date leads some blatantly capricious or outrageous result.

5. In the instant case, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that nature of duties performed by the Sub Inspectors and Constables of Police Department and Special Armed Force are similar to that of the employees of Department of Transportation, Excise, Home Guards and Jail. Therefore, in the facts of the case, there is no infringement of right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The fixation of norms of eligibility for recruitment is within the realm of employer and the scope of judicial review in such a case is extremely limited. The fixation of cut-off date cannot be said to be blatantly capricious and the Court has to exercise judicial restraint in such a case. See : Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs. P. Laxmi Devi, (2008) 4 SCC 720. For yet another reason, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, as the petitioner had participated in the process of selection and thereafter has challenged the criteria of selection. The aforesaid conduct of t