Punjab-Haryana High Court
Puneet Kaur And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 24 December, 2014
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA
2014.12.24 17:49
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
I attest AT
to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.26881 of 2014
Date of decision:24.12.2014
Puneet Kaur and others
...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present: Mr.S.S.Pathania, Advocate for the petitioners.
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral)
Feeling aggrieved against the action of the respondents describing lower age limit up to 26 years, decreasing it from earlier prescribed which was 28 years for the purpose of entry into service, petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for issuing an appropriate writ.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that before decreasing the upper age limit from 28 years to 26 years, respondents did not issue any public notice putting the petitioners to notice, that the upper age limit is going to be decreased from 28 years to 26 years. He further submits that by decreasing the age from 28 years to 26 years, the respondents have acted in an arbitrary manner, while violating the right of equality of the petitioners. Thus, he concluded by submitting that the action of the respondents, in decreasing the age limit from 28 years to 26 years being patently MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 2014.12.24 17:49 CWP No.26881 of 2014 -2- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document illegal, may be set aside, by allowing the present writ petition.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at considerable length, after careful perusal of record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case noticed hereinabove, no interference is warranted at the hands of this Court, while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. To say so, reasons are more than one, which are being recorded hereinafter.
It is the settled proposition of law that prescribing any upper age limit for entry into service is the exclusive domain of the administrative authorities. Until and unless any glaring violation of statutory provisions of law is alleged and established, there would be hardly any scope for this Court to interfere, while exercising its writ jurisdiction. Similarly, until and unless it is shown that the administrative authority, while prescribing upper age limit, has acted without jurisdiction, this Court would be slow to interfere in the policy decision of the State.
During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any jurisdictional error or patent illegality, in the impugned action taken by the respondent authorities, while decreasing the upper age limit from 28 years to 26 years, which may warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.
It goes without saying that the upper age limit is applicable for all the aspiring candidates including the petitioners and MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 2014.12.24 17:49 CWP No.26881 of 2014 -3- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document the action of the respondent authorities is not going to adversely affect only the petitioners. When a pointed question was put to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to which provision of law stands violated by the respondents authorities and which right of the petitioners has been infringed, he had no answer and rightly so, because it was a matter of record. Having said that, this Court feels no hesitation to conclude that since the issue of fixing lower and upper age limit for entry into service, comes within the domain of the administrative authorities, action of the respondent authorities has not been found to be suffering from any illegality and the same deserves to be upheld.
So far as the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents ought to have issued a public notice before decreasing the upper age limit from 28 years to 26 years is concerned, the same has been duly considered but found, not worth acceptance. It is so said, because it is not the requirement of law to issue any such public notice before carrying out any amendment in the statutory rules, decreasing the age limit for entry into government service. Once the action of the respondents has neither infringed any right of the petitioners nor has violated any statutory provisions of law, the impugned action has not been found suffering from any arbitrariness or discrimination. Thus, the impugned action deserves to be upheld, for this reason also.
No other argument was raised.
Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 2014.12.24 17:49 CWP No.26881 of 2014 -4- I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document case noted above, coupled with the reasons aforementioned, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is wholly misconceived, bereft of merit and without any substance. Thus, it must fail. No case for interference has been made out.
Resultantly, the instant writ petition stands dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.
24.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE