Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Prabha Sharma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 March, 2016
1
W.P. No.2004/2016
31.3.2016
Shri M.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri V.P. Khare, learned counsel for the respondents.
Heard finally with consent.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved with the clauses of the advertisement (Annexure P/1) relating to the upper age limit as also prescribing the requirement of NET/SLET/SAT eligibility for the candidates not having Ph.D. in terms of UGC regulations, 2009.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid conditions which have been incorporated in the advertisement are arbitrary and the upper age limit of 45 years should be relaxed and the petitioner should be permitted to participate in the selection process and the requirement relating to Ph.D. should also be done away with.
Counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it is noticed that as per the petitioner's own averment, her date of birth is 16.6.1966 and she has completed more than 50 years. The upper age limit prescribed in the advertisement is 45 years after all the relaxation and the age is to be calculated as on 1.1.2017. Since the petitioner has already crossed the upper age limit of 45 years, therefore, she is not eligible to participate in the process in terms of the advertisement.
The fixation of age limit is a policy matter. The Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Deependra Singh Bhadoria Vs. State of M.P. and Another in W.A. No.510/2011, vide order 2 dated 17.5.2012 has already held that for entering into service fixation of age limit, revision of age limit or grant of age relaxation are the policy matters, which are in the domain of the employer and the writ court does not fix these limits. In the matter of Deependra Singh Bhadoria Vs. State of M.P. & Another the Single Bench vide order dated 24.11.2010 in W.P. No.13290/2010 by placing reliance upon the earlier Division Bench judgment in the matter of D.R. Sharma (Dayaram Sharma) Vs. State of M.P. and others, W.P. No.1710/2008 dated 5.9.2008 has held that the matter of grant of age relaxation to the candidates is a pure policy discretion of the State Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out as to how maximum age fixed in the advertisement is arbitrary or discriminatory in nature, nor it is the case of the petitioner that the maximum age prescribed in the advertisement is contrary to any rule or regulation.
In these circumstances the petitioner's plea for relaxation of the upper age limit cannot be accepted. Similarly in respect of the prescription of requirement relating to the Ph.D., no arbitrariness has been pointed out, hence the same also does not require any interference.
The writ petition is found to be devoid of any merit, which is accordingly dismissed.
C.C. as per rules.
(Prakash Shrivastava) Judge trilok