Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Prerna Agarwal vs State Of Raj on 20 September, 2013
Author: Amitava Roy
Bench: Amitava Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8792/2013 Prerna Agarwal Versus State of Rajasthan Date of Judgment :: 20th September, 2013 PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AMITAVA ROY HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA Mr.Tanveer Ahmed for petitioner. Mr.S.N. Kumawat, AAG, for respondent. <><><> BY THE COURT : (Per Hon'ble Veerendr Singh Siradhana, J.)
The writ petitioner having submitted her candidature for consideration in response to an advertisement dated 25th April, 2013 issued by the respondent-State for appointment on the post of Informatics Assistant, has preferred the instant writ application for declaring the prescription of minimum age of 21 years ultra-vires Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and further claiming the following relief:-
The impugned part of Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Computer State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1992 to the extent of minimum age of 21 years for the post of Informatics Assistant (Data Entry Operator) may kindly be declared as ultra-vires and accordingly be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice and the humble petitioner may kindly be declared as eligible to participate in the selection process for the post of Informatics Assistant in the interest of justice or in the alternate the minimum age may be ordered to be relaxed in case of petitioner in reference to the advertisement (Anex.-1).
2. Any other appropriate order, which may be found just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, be passed in favour of the petitioner.
3. Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner.
2. The facts necessary for adjudication on the assailment as to vires of Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Computer State & Subordinate Services Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1992'), are that the petitioner's date of birth is 20th March, 1993 and having successfully completed the Engineering Course in Computer Science & Engineering from the Board of Technical Education, Rajasthan, Jodhpur with First Division, offered her candidature for consideration for appointment to the post of 'Informatics Assistant', which was earlier classified as 'Data Entry Operator' under the Rules of 1992, in response to the advertisement aforesaid.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner referring to Rule 44 of the Rules of 1992, has pleaded that the petitioner also addressed a representation to relax necessity of the condition for the candidate of having acquired the minimum age of 21 years as provided under Schedule-II appended to the Rules of 1992, but the representation has not been responded by the respondent-State.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that on account of prescription of the minimum age of 21 years under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1992, she is likely to be disqualified from the eligibility criterion for appointment in response to the advertisement dated 25th April, 2013.
5. It is not disputed that the advertisement dated 25th April, 2013 along with educational qualification also stipulated in a specific condition to the effect that the applicant seeking consideration of his/ her candidature for appointment to the post of 'Informatics Assistant' must have acquired the minimum age of 21 years as on 1st January, 2014 and should not be more than 35 years of age. The advertisement under Clause-21(?) further stipulated a note to the effect that the application entertained On-line would be provisional and further the mere factum of entertaining/accepting the application, in response to the advertisement will neither confer any right in favour of the applicant nor the information furnished in the application, would be treated to be correct; if the same was found contrary to the documentary evidence relating to age, educational qualification and/or certificate with reference to reservation in SC/ST/OBC/SBC. Further, in the event of detection of any disqualification/ineligibility, the candidature of the candidate would be liable to be cancelled at any stage of the selection process.
6. The petitioner, after having offered her candidature for consideration in terms of advertisement aforesaid, has now assailed the prescription of minimum age of 21 years for the post of 'Informatics Assistant' under the Rules of 1992 as ultra-vires Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India since such a prescription of minimum age suffers with the vice of unreasonableness, arbitrariness and is discriminatory as well. Further, the prescription is not an ideal condition commensurate with the qualification vis-a-vis the post of 'Informatics Assistant'. Another ground of assailment of the legality, validity and correctness of the prescription of the minimum age of 21 years is for the reason that the post of 'Data Entry Operator'/'Informatics Assistant' is equivalent in cadre to the post of Lower Divisional Clerk (hereinafter referred to as 'the L.D.C.', for short), in the Panchayati Raj Department, and the minimum age prescribed thereunder is 18 years. Reference has also been made to the Rajasthan Tehsildar Service Rules, 1956, where the minimum age prescribed is 20 years.
7. We have heard the learned counsel, Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, for petitioner and the learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. S.N. Kumawat, for the respondent-State.
8. The learned Additional Advocate General has repelled the challenge in view of the specific stipulation made under Clause 21(?) of the advertisement dated 25th April, 2013 and in response to which, the petitioner submitted her application for consideration of her candidature for appointment to the post of 'Informatics Assistant', wherein it was specifically notified to the intending candidates seeking consideration of their candidature for appointment, about the prescription of minimum age of 21 years as on 1st January, 2014. Further, Clause-9 of the advertisement in unequivocal terms spelt out the minimum age as 21 years as well as maximum age of 35 years with the terms and conditions with reference to permissible relaxation, and the same has not been questioned.
9. From the memo of the writ petition, nothing is discernible as to how, for what reasons and on what grounds the prescription of minimum age of 21 years under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1992 is ultra-vires Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Merely because under the Rajasthan Tehsildar Service Rules, 1956, the minimum age prescribed is 20 years and under Panchayati Raj Department, the prescription of minimum age as 18 years and that too, for L.D.C., cannot be a reason, legally sustainable, so as to render Rule 11 of the Rules of 1992 as ultra-vires Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
10. By a catena of judgments by now it is a well settled legal proposition of law that Article 14 of the Constitution strikes at arbitrariness for the reason that if an action is arbitrary, it essentially negates the fundamental principle of equality. The element of arbitrariness not only covers the administrative and executive actions, but also takes into its fold the legislation. Therefore, one who stakes his claim questioning an action to be arbitrary must show that the act complained of is unreasonable or capricious. Moreover, with reference to the action of the legislature, the alleged violation of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution, must be shown to be manifestly arbitrary. There must be a case of inherent and substantive unreasonableness in the statute itself for sustaining the challenge and for a declaration of the act as ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution.
11. It is equally well settled that the safeguard provided by Article 14 of the Constitution can only be invoked, if the statutory prescription is made on the grounds which are totally irrelevant to the object sought to be achieved by the statutory provisions in question. However, if there is some nexus between the objects sought to be achieved and the act complained of, there will be a presumption that the legislature has acted in proper exercise of the constitutional power vested to legislate in question. There may be occasions where the statutory prescription in practice may result in some hardship to some class. But, for that reason the statutory discrimination as a consequence of statutory prescription, cannot be set aside, if there are facts on the basis of which the statutory discrimination can be justified.
12. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out from the pleadings on the basis of which the action of the statutory prescription providing for minimum age of 21 years could be considered to have been done on the basis unreasonable and/or understandable having regard to the object of the statutory rules; and legislative competence is not in question. Further, it is also settled position of law that the Court will not question the validity of the statutory prescription on the ground of lack of legislative wisdom. It hardly needs to be reiterated that the every statutory prescription is not capable of being done with an accurate mathematical precision and the legislature has the latitude, to a certain extent, for providing the statutory prescription(s), having regard to the attending facts and circumstances of the subject matter keeping in view the object sought to be achieved. The court would not act as a legislature, an area specifically within the domain of the legislative body.
13. Acceptance of the On-line application of the petitioner does not confer any legally enforceable right in favour of the petitioner for consideration of her candidature in spite of not fulfilling the eligibility criterion as per the rules and terms and conditions of the advertisement. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any principle of law, under which, if a candidate was allowed to participate in the selection process, the competent authority is precluded from examining the fact as to whether the application of the intending candidate was complete, in order, within time or otherwise acceptable. A defective application form would render the candidate ineligible, which might be overlooked at the initial stage of screening and as a result the candidate may be allowed provisionally to participate in the selection process, but that fact alone does not mean that the candidate cannot be held ineligible for selection at a later stage once the defect in the application surfaced before the authorities.
14. Moreover, the petitioner after having participated in the selection process subject to the terms and conditions specifically stipulated in the advertisement, cannot take a U-turn and question the legality of the selection process as well as the terms and conditions stipulated therein. It is surely open for judicial review to examine whether the reason assigned by the selection authority for holding a candidate ineligible for selection is valid or unreasonable, but in the event the reason for exclusion of the candidate from the selection process, is found to be reasonable, the matter will not call for interference simply for the reason that the candidate was allowed participation in the selection process. The principle of estoppel has no application in such a factual matrix.
15. Since the petitioner is not eligible in view of the stipulation of age prescribed under the Rules of 1992, as she would not be acquiring the prescribed minimum age of 21 years as on 1st January, 2014, in our opinion, the application of the petitioner in response to the advertisement offering her candidature for consideration, is not otherwise valid. Further, the respondent is not precluded from the scrutiny of the application, if not found as per the terms and conditions stipulated in the advertisement as per Rules.
16. As a result of the discussion above, we have no hesitation in concluding that the writ application preferred by the petitioner is bereft of merit and deserves to be dismissed.
17. In the result, the writ application preferred by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. The stay application also stands closed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA), J. (AMITAVA ROY), CJ. Sunil/P.A.
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
(Sunil Solanki) P.A.