ORDER

The present petition has been filed challenging the order/circular dated 16.12.2016 (Annexure P-1) issued by the State Govt. whereby the earlier Circular dated 11.01.1985 has been withdrawn by the State Govt.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is an educated unemployed person and has obtained green card under family planning programme of the State Govt. as he has undergone family planning operation after having two live children. It is the case of petitioner that earlier, the State Govt. had issued two different circulars, both dated 11.01.1985 whereby the State Govt. had taken a decision to grant 5% bonus marks of the maximum marks in Interview stage in recruitment to posts in service of Madhya Pradesh Government. By the second Circular dated 11.01.1985, it was further provided that such green card holders would be given an additional relaxation of two years in maximum age limit to apply in Government Service.

3. It is the case of petitioner that the State Govt. could not have withdrawn the said Circulars and could not have withdrawn the concessions and relaxations granted by the said Circulars and such action is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory as the petitioner and the similarly situated persons shall be deprived of their right of employment in Government Sector.

4. Per contra by referring to the reply filed by the State Govt., it is pointed out by the learned counsel for respondents that earlier looking to the situation in the decades of 1980s and 1990s, the Circulars dated 11.01.1985 were issued to tackle the situation of population explosion in the country and also to raise awareness among the citizens for family planning. It is further pointed out that subsequently, an amendment has been carried out in Madhya Pradesh General Conditions of Service Rules 1961 vide notification dated 10.03.2000 and made applicable w.e.f.26.01.2001. By the said notification, new Rule 6(6) has been inserted and it is provided that any candidate having two or having more than two live children and one of those having born on or after 26.01.2001 would not be eligible for appointment on any post in Government service.

5. Thus, it is contended that once the candidates having more than two children are now debarred from Government service, hence there is no utility in continuing with the incentive of having undergone family planning operation after two children. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that now the maximum age limit for appointment to all Government services has been enhanced to 40 years and for reserved categories, it is even more than 40 years. Previously, this age was 35 years. Thus, it is submitted that once the maximum age limit has itself been enhanced by the State Govt., hence, it was not necessary to provide additional relaxation to green holders by two years.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. The petitioner in the present case seeks to challenge withdrawal of benefits to green card holders. The said benefits are more in the nature of relaxation or concession. It is settled in law that any relaxation or concession is not a vested right and the relaxation or concession once granted can always be withdrawn by the same authority.

8. Such relaxations or concessions as in the present case are given with a view to achieve social objectives of the Government, which in the present case was to tackle the problem of population explosion in the country. At the relevant point of time, as stated in 1980s and 1990s, as argued by the learned counsel for the State, the situation required grant of such benefits to popularize family planning operation. With efflux time, the State Govt. has amended the service rules and barred the candidates having more than two children born after 26.01.2001 from entry in Govt. Service. It is the case of the State that the persons undergoing family planning operation were extended additional benefits in the matter of award of in