HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3298/2021 Uday Shankar Pathak and others Versus State of M.P. and others Counsel for the appellant : Shri Dharmendra Soni, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Counsel for the respondents: Shri Piyush Bhatnagar, Ld.

Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No. 1, 2 and 4, Shri Shubham Rai, learned counsel for respondent No.3 *****

O R D E R

(03-01-2022)

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners who have challenged the undated advertisement for the Police Constable Recruitment Rules, 2020 by which the recruitment to the post of constables which is scheduled for 08.01.2022 has been challenged.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners herein have all crossed the maximum prescribed age of eligibility for the said purpose which is 33 years. He has further submitted that as recruitment to the said posts have been advertised in the year 2020 and the last recruitment process for recruitment of constables was in the year 2017, the petitioners ought to be given age relaxation as, had it been held every year, the petitioners would have been eligible to participate in the recruitment process. The petitioners are all residents of Madhya Pradesh.

The said recruitment advertisement has been challenged with specific reference to Clause 1.7 which relates to the age limit in the recruitment process. Clause 1.7 sets the minimum age limit for open competition for gazetted post through the M.P.P.S.C as 21 years and the maximum age as 33 years. It also sets the age for those recruitments outside the scope of M.P.P.S.C. to non-gazetted post with a minimum age of 18 years and maximum at 33 years.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also challenged the advertisement on the ground of discrimination that there is a relaxation of five years in both the categories for women. He has drawn the attention of this Court to document filed along with document No.6246/2021, which is a circular issued by General Administration Department on 4.6.2019 laying down the upper age limit for the post to be filled up by M.P.P.S.C. and also such posts to be filled up outside the scope of M.P.P.S.C. as 40 years.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that the advertisement does not give the provisions of the rule on the basis of which it has been issued and that the same falls foul with the judgment of the Supreme Court which he does not have ready at hand but has sought time to place the same before this Court later. However, as the order is being dictated on board after hearing arguments of both the parties, no time can be given to the counsel to produce the said judgment and he ought to have produced the same during the course of the arguments itself if he desired that the same be considered by this Court. He has also drawn the attention of this Court to the order dated 26.02.2021 passed by this Court whereby, this Court had observed that the Circular dated 4.7.2019 of the G.A.D. prescribes the maximum age limit as 40 years whereas the advertisement prescribes only 33 years as maximum age limit. It has been also observed that there is an anomaly between the maximum age limit as shown by the Circular of 2019 and the advertisement in question.

Learned counsel for the petitioners had drawn the attention of this Court to judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 2377/2018 ( Mukesh Kumar Umar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh). In that case, the issue before the learned Division Bench related to a discrimination in the age limit provided for candidates who are domiciled in the State of Madhya Pradesh in relation to employment under the State and those from outside the State of M.P.

Learned Division Bench held the same to be discriminatory and violative of Articles 16(1), 16(2) and 15 of the Constitution of India, however, it would be relevant to discuss the factual background of that case on which the judgment was passed. In that case, challenge was give