Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhwinder Singh vs State Of Haryana And Another on 31 May, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
C.W.P.No.11329 of 2012 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.11329 of 2012
Date of Decision:-31.05.2012
Sukhwinder Singh ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and another ....Respondent(s)
***
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
***
Present:- Mr.Ravish Bansal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
Petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's eligibility to appear in the Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) and other allied Services Exam, 2011 (hereinafter referred to as 'the HCS Exam') by granting him age relaxation of upper age limit upto 45 years treating him a government employee just like other employees of Haryana Government, Punjab and Haryana High Court and any Court subordinate to it. Although the petitioner was an employee of erstwhile Punjab State Electricity Board but after bifurcation posted in Punjab State Transmission Corporation Limited, the same being a State instrumentality. A further direction has also been sought that Clause 4 II (c) of the Brochure (Annexure P-2) which provides for age relaxation declaring the expression C.W.P.No.11329 of 2012 -2- "employees of Haryana Government" to include employees of other Governments also' in view of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.19389 of 2009 Gur Jai Pal Singh vs. State of Punjab and others, decided on 25.5.2010 (Annexure P-4).
Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is working as an Assistant Executive Engineer with the Punjab State Transmission Corporation Limited, which was initially a part of the Punjab State Electricity Board and was bifurcated into two different Corporations. The said Corporation is an instrumentality of State being funded and controlled by the State of Punjab and is discharging public utility services of transmission of Electricity which brings him within the ambit of Government employee, thus, entitling him the benefit of age relaxation. His contention is that the restriction imposed in Clause 4 (II) (c) at internal page 2 of the Brochure (Annexure P-2) restricting the benefit of age relaxation to the employees of Haryana Government, Punjab and Haryana High Court and any Court Subordinate to it in the State of Haryana and excluding the employees of Boards, Universities, Corporations and Banks etc., is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as the petitioner is being denied the benefit of consideration for appointment to an office under the State. His contention is that the Corporation employees of Haryana Government used in the Brochure and all forms/documents etc. issued in pursuance thereto, should be given a wider meaning and shall be construed to include within its ambit all government employees irrespective of the State Government where they are serving. Restricting it to the Haryana Government employees would be against the spirit with which the C.W.P.No.11329 of 2012 -3- age relaxation has been granted as this is intended to give an opportunity to the Government employees who are well acquainted and accustomed with the procedure, atmosphere and working conditions of the Government Department and, thus, can prove better administrators. For accomplishment of the said objective, classification between the Government employees as Haryana Government employees and employees of other governments would amount to violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. It has further been contended that relaxation has been provided under the same clause to the women which is irrational and the same cannot be sustained. The classification is not just, fair and equitable and being arbitrary deserves to be quashed granting the benefit of age relaxation to other government employees as well irrespective of the fact that where and with which government they are serving. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in Gur Jai Pal Singh's case (supra) to contend that the same benefit has been granted by this Court in the said writ petition where the Government of Punjab had also put a similar rider, was diluted by this Court to include government employees irrespective of their employer. Counsel for the petitioner further contends that the respondents are estopped from now imposing the condition by restricting the age relaxation to employees of Haryana Government only as they had accepted the application form of the petitioner in the preliminary examination in which he participated and has cleared the same. Accordingly, prayer has been made for allowing the present writ petition with a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner a government employee and grant him age relaxation of upper age limit upto 45 years.
C.W.P.No.11329 of 2012 -4-
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the records of the case.
For deciding the issue which has been raised in the present writ petition, reference to clause 4 (II) of the Brochure issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission for HCS (Executive Branch) and other allied services exam is essential, relevant portion of which reads as follows:-
"II. Age Limits : The candidates (except for the post for Dy. Superintendent of Police) should not be less than 21 years and not more than 40 years of age on or before the first day of January next preceding the last date for submission of application to the Commission. The age for DSP is given in column (g) below.
Upper age limit is relaxable upto 5 years for the candidates belonging to the following categories:
(a) Scheduled Castes, Backward Classes of Haryana only.
(b) Un-married female candidates of Haryana only.
(c ) Employees of Haryana Government, Punjab and Haryana High Court or any Court subordinate to it in the State of Haryana with four years of service (the employees of the Boards/Corporations/Universities/ Banks etc. are not eligible for concession in upper age limit).
(d) Women whose husbands have been ordered by C.W.P.No.11329 of 2012 -5- Civil/Criminal Courts to pay maintenance to them;
women whose husbands have re-married; widows;
women who are legally separated from their husbands or have been divorced; women living separately from their husbands for more than two years because of desertion; wives of serving disabled Military personnel and widows of those who were killed in action. Women living separately from their husbands due to desertion will be required to submit with her application, an affidavit to the effect that she has been deserted by her husband, and has been living separately from him for more than two years and this affidavit should be countersigned by two responsible persons such as Member of the Legislatures, Local Bodies including Panchayats and the Bar Associations. Where however, a woman who has remarried would not be eligible for the above concession in the matter of age.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx"
A perusal of the above would show that the age limit prescribed for the candidates is between 21 to 40 years on or before the first day of January, 2011 as the examination is being held in the year 2011. Relaxation has been granted upto 5 years belonging to certain categories. As per Clause (c), this relaxation is applicable to a class of employees belonging to the Haryana Government, Punjab and Haryana High Court or any Court subordinate to it in the State of Haryana with four years of service. C.W.P.No.11329 of 2012 -6- Employees of the Boards, Corporations/Universities/Banks etc. are said to be not eligible for concession in the upper age limit. Concession granted by the Government can only be claimed as a matter of right if such a right is conferred on a candidate. To be eligible for claiming such a concession, the conditions imposed therein are required to be fulfilled. These decisions are basically policy matters which is within the domain of the Executive Authority and the Courts do not interfere with such decisions of the Executive Authority unless the same appears to be on the face of it blatantly, discriminatory, capricious, whimsical or arbitrary. There may be various considerations which would weigh in the mind of the Authorities such as financial, administrative etc. while limiting the benefit of concession to a particular category and the same can only be interfered with under limited circumstances as mentioned above. Grant of concession is discretionary which generally is not interfered with by the Court and restricting the benefit to the employees of Haryana Government is justified as the posts which are being filled up are for the HCS and allied Services. The rationale for granting the said benefit to the Haryana Government employees is apparent which cannot be said to be totally capricious or whimsical which would amount to an arbitrary decision by the Authority. The decision, thus, restricting the grant of concession in relaxation in upper age limit by the Government of Haryana does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the same is based upon a rationale and justifiable reason.
For claiming the benefit of equality of opportunity in matters of public employment as provided under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, the same can be invoked where right of equality of opportunity is C.W.P.No.11329 of 2012 -7- denied to a citizen on the ground of only religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, residence or any of them and on this basis rendering him ineligible, thus, amounting to discrimination. None of these grounds has been violated by imposing the condition of grant of relaxation in upper age limit restricting it to Haryana Government employees only. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that Clause 4 II (c) of the Brochure is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, thus, cannot sustain.
As regards the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the upper age limit has been relaxed qua women which would amount to violation of Article 16 as sex of a citizen is being made the basis for such discrimination, suffice it to say that Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India permits the State for making any special provision for women and thus, this contention also does not hold any force.
Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Gur Jai Pal Singh's case (supra) to contend that the benefit of age relaxation of upper age limit upto 45 years need to be extended to all government employees, this contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted as perusal of the said judgment (Annexure P-
4) would show that the said order was based upon letter dated 12.11.2009 of the State of Punjab, according to which a decision was taken by the Government of Punjab that the upper age limit for government employees be treated as 45 years. The word 'government employees' in the said letter being not restricted to the employees of any particular government was interpreted to include employees of the Central Government and other C.W.P.No.11329 of 2012 -8- governments. This judgment would not be applicable to the case in hand and no benefit can be derived by the petitioner from the said judgment.
Another contention which has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents are estopped from now imposing the condition by restricting the age relaxation to employees of Haryana Government only as they had accepted the application form of the petitioner in the preliminary examination in which he participated and has cleared the same. This contention of the counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted in the light of the specific provisions as contained in clause 13 at page 9 of the Brochure, relevant portion whereof reads as follows "xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx The candidate should note that their admission to the examination will be purely provisional based on the information given by them in the application (OCR) form. All the candidates who applied for the Preliminary Examination will be allowed to take the examination subject to the fulfillment of all eligibility conditions which will be checked by the HPSC later on while a qualified candidate applied for the Main Examination. The mere fact that a certificate of admission to the Examination has been issued to a candidate, will not imply that his/her candidature has been finally cleared by the Commission or that entries made by the candidate in his/her application for the Preliminary Examination have been accepted by the Commission as true and correct. C.W.P.No.11329 of 2012 -9- Candidates may note that the Commission takes up the checking of eligibility conditions of a candidate, with reference to the attested documents submitted by the candidates with the application form for the Main Examination. Unless candidature is formally confirmed by the Commission, it continues to be provisional. The decision of the Commission as to the eligibility or otherwise of a candidate for admission to the Examination shall be final.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx"
Another ground which goes against the petitioner is his approach to the Court challenging the Brochure at this stage . It is admitted by the petitioner that he had bought the Brochure (Annexure P-2) while filling up the application form. The petitioner would have gone through the terms and conditions as specified in the Brochure and he was well aware of the eligibility conditions provided in clause 4 of the same which included age limit. He being well aware of these facts, participated in the selection process and took the preliminary examination. Petitioner should have approached the Court at that initial stage and his approach at this belated stage itself does not inspire confidence of this Court. The claim based on equity also, therefore, does not favour the petitioner.
In view of the above, the present writ petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly.
May 31, 2012 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE