$~37 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16518/2023 & CM APPL. 66610/2023 SOCIETY FOR HOLISTIC APPROACH AND DEVELOPMENT ..... Petitioner Through: Dr. Anup Kumar Mishra, Advocate.

versus STATE NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC, GNCTD with Mr. N.K. Singh, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik, Ms. Aliza Alam and Mr.

Mohnish Sehrawat, Advocates.

% Date of Decision: 21^st December, 2023 CORAM:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

J U D G M E N T

1. The present Public Interest Litigation (“PIL”) has been filed challenging the process of recruitment of Probation Officers vide Vacancy Notice/Advertisement No. 04/23 dated 20^th November, 2023 on the ground that the same is not in consonance with the Recruitment Rules laid down as per the Gazette No. 323 dated 9^th November, 2021 and the Delhi Probation of Offenders Rules (Amended) 2019.

2. It is submitted that as per Gazette No. 323 dated 9^th November, 2021, the Delhi Probation of Offenders Rules (Amended) 2019 were amended whereby the age limit for the post of Probation Officer was stipulated as “not less than 25 years and not more than 40 years of age” at the time of first Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:CHARU W.P.(C) 16518/2023 Page 1 of 5 appointment (exclusive of period of training) in the case of Junior Probation Officers; and “not less than 30 years and not more than 40 years of age” at the time of first appointment in the case of Senior Probation Officers. However, in the Advertisement published by respondent no. 4 i.e. Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (“DSSSB”), the required age limit for the post of Probation Officer (Grade B) has been stipulated as “not exceeding 30 years”.

3. Thus, it is contended that there is a drastic contradiction between the Recruitment Rules as published vide Gazette No. 323 dated 9^th November, 2021 and the Advertisement dated 20^th November, 2023 published by the respondent no. 4, as the age limit for the post of Probation Officer has been limited to 30 years, instead of age limit of 25-40 years. Further, the grade pay is reduced to Rs. 4,200/- instead of Rs. 4,800/-.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present PIL. By the present PIL, the petitioner is essentially challenging the recruitment process as well as the selection criteria as specified in the Advertisement Notice published by respondent no. 4/DSSSB. Challenge to a selection process by contesting the selection criteria cannot be subject matter of a PIL. It is no gainsaying that a PIL is maintainable only when fundamental rights of the people are shown to be violated. The purpose of PILs is to protect basic human rights of the disadvantaged and is for the benefit of the poor and the underprivileged, who are unable to come to Court due to some disadvantage.

5. A process of selection for recruitment carried out by Government Authorities cannot be allowed to be challenged by way of PIL, as laying down the selection criteria and the required qualifications is within the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:CHARU W.P.(C) 16518/2023 Page 2 of 5 domain of the Appointing Authority. If any individual is aggrieved by any criteria for recruitment, he or she has full authority to challenge the same in appropriate legal proceedings.

6. Holding that a PIL is not maintainable in service matters and that in service matters only the non-appointees can assail the legality of the appointment procedure, Supreme Court in the case of Girjesh Srivastava and Others Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, [(2010) 10 SCC 707], has held as follows:

“XXX XXX XXX

15. In Duryodhan Sahu (Dr.) v. Jitendra Kumar Mishra [(1998) 7 SCC 273: 1998 SCC (L&S) 1802] a three-Judge Bench of this Court held that a PIL is not maintainable in service matters. This Court, speaking through Srinivasan, J. explained the purpose of administrative tribunals created under Article 323-A in the backdrop of