Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dr.Jagdeep Malik And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 26 March, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.No.5593 of 2012
Date of Decision:- 26.03.2012
Dr.Jagdeep Malik and others ....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent(s)
***
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
***
Present:- Mr.Raman B.Garg, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)
Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing the advertisement dated 2.11.2011 (Annexure P-7) vide which the upper age limit prescribed for a person to be eligible for appointment to the post of Sub Divisional Officer H.V.S., Class -I in Animal Husbandry and Dairying Department, Haryana is prescribed as 45 years, which according to the petitioners, should be 50 years for in-service candidates.
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that although the statutory rules provide for the upper age limit to be 45 years but since the year 1995 whenever the posts have been advertised i.e. (Annexures P-3 to P-5 and P-6 A), relaxation has always been granted to the in-service candidates by invoking Rule 19 of the Haryana Veterinary (Group A) Service Rules, 1995 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' ). His contention is that once relaxation with regard to the age from 45 years to C.W.P.No.5593 of 2012 -2- 50 years has been granted to in-service officers which he contends is apparent from the letter dated 14.7.1995 (Annexure P-1), invoking of the said Rule on every occasion for relaxation of the upper age limit is not required and the petitioner is also entitled to relaxation of age from 45 to 50 years. He, on this basis, contends that the advertisement impugned is, therefore, required to be made in such a manner that it is in consonance with the initial decision of the Government taken for relaxing the upper age limit of the in-service candidates. His further contention is that after invoking of the powers under Rule 19 in the year 1995, no such decision has been taken by the Government thereafter for relaxing the upper age limit and that continued for all times to come and had been consistently followed by the Department. The consistent stand of the respondent-Department has been that the post in question requires highly specialized and skilled qualifications to be possessed by the candidates for which the upper age limit should be 50 years, as is apparent from the advertisement referred to above for which upper age limit has been taken as 50 years in the past which this time has not been provided by the Haryana Public Service Commission while issuing the advertisement. He further contends that this time also, the Government has sent the requisition to the Haryana Public Service Commission by incorporating the condition of 50 years as the upper age limit and, therefore, the impugned advertisement has wrongly been issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission. At this stage, counsel clarifies that earlier the requisition was sent by prescribing 50 years as the upper C.W.P.No.5593 of 2012 -3- age limit which was objected to by the Haryana Public Service Commission as the same was not in consonance with the Statutory Rules which objection has been accepted by the Government and a fresh requisition sent with upper age limit of 45 years for in-service candidates as well. Accordingly, he states that the impugned advertisement cannot sustain.
I have heard counsel for the petitioners and gone through the records of the case.
It is not in dispute that the Statutory Rules governing the service, namely, Haryana Veterinary (Group A) Service Rules, 1995 provide for the upper age limit of 45 years for all candidates for filling up the posts of Sub Divisional Officer, H.V.S. Class I in the Animal Husbandry and Dairying Department, Haryana. The decision dated 14.7.1995 (Annexure P-1) of the Government of Haryana granting age relaxation by invoking Rule 19 and prescribing the upper age limit to be 50 years for in- service Officers of the Department related to an advertisement No.11/1994 issued in January, 1995. A specific provision of relaxation i.e. Rule 19 is provided under the Statutory Rules by the Government of Haryana where a conscious decision is to be taken for relaxation of the upper age limit. This was not a general decision to which the petitioners can submit that it was for all times to come. Even if the subsequent advertisement has been issued by invoking the relaxation clause or prescribing the age of 50 years as the upper age limit for in-service candidates, the same being not in consonance with the statutory rules cannot be taken as a precedent for C.W.P.No.5593 of 2012 -4- claiming the upper age limit to be 50 years. However, in the present case, even if the Government had initially sent a requisition to the Haryana Public Service Commission prescribing the upper age limit to be 50 years for in-service candidates, when objected to by the Haryana Public Service Commission that it is not in consonance with the Statutory Rules, the said objection has been accepted by the Government and has accordingly directed the Haryana Public Service Commission to fill up the posts as per the Statutory Rules according to which the upper age limit is 45 years. The discretion provided to the government by invoking Rule 19 of the Rules to grant relaxation cannot be said to be not in consonance with the Statutory Rules governing the service. The decision with regard to the relaxation of the Rules is to be taken by the Government within its exclusive domain and executive powers which is dependent on the circumstances as it existed at the time of filling up of the posts which is apparent from letter dated 14.7.1995 ( Annexure P-1). The same has been invoked for that particular advertisement/selection. The claim, thus, of the petitioners for relaxation of the age on the basis of a decision dated 14.7.1995 taken by the Government for providing upper age limit as 50 years, cannot be accepted.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the post which is sought to be filled up by the Government through the Haryana Public Service Commission requires highly skilled and technical qualifications and, therefore, the upper age limit should be 50 years instead of 45 years, also cannot be accepted as it is for the Appointing C.W.P.No.5593 of 2012 -5- Authority to decide as to what would be the terms and conditions and the eligibility for appointment to the post. The Courts cannot interfere in such decisions when the Statutory Rules provide for a specified age limit.
In view of the above, finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.
March 26, 2012 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE