Jharkhand High Court
Yashwanti Kumari vs Jharkhand State Public Service ... on 14 January, 2016
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (S) No. 107 of 2016
---
Yashwanti Kumari --- --- ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Jharkhand Public Service Commission
2. The Chairman, Jharkhand Public Service Commission --- --- Respondents
---
CORAM:The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
For the Petitioner: Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Advocate
For the Resp - JPSC: Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate
---
02/ 14.01.2016Heard counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner has sought interference in fixation of cut-off date for reckoning the upper age limit under Advertisement No. 10/2015 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) where upper age has to be reckoned by the cut-off date 31.01.2015.
3. Petitioner contends that the cut-off date should be fixed as 31.01.2013 to enable the persons belonging to the female category (general) like the petitioner to participate in the recruitment exercise. It is contended by the petitioner that after passing the LLB Exam, she got enrolled as an Advocate on 07.03.2014. However, by the cut-off date fixed under the present Advertisement in question (Annexure-1) i.e. 31.01.2015, petitioner has been rendered overage as she has crossed the upper age limit. The last exam was held under the Advertisement No. 04/2013 where the cut-off date was shifted to 2009 making many such candidates eligible who became age barred due to delay in holding such recruitment exercise between 2009-2013. Similar consideration may also be accorded in the instant recruitment exercise to enable the persons like the petitioner to participate in the larger good.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent - JPSC submits that on same and similar grounds, challenge to the reckoning of the upper age limit by the cut-off date 31.01.2015, has been negated by this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar Paswan & another vs. The State of Jharkhand & others in WPS No. 5812/2015 and analogous cases. It is submitted that this Court vide judgment dated 07.12.2015, have taken note of the identical pleas raised by the said petitioners also relying upon the judgments rendered by the learned Division of this Court in the case of Sanjeev 2. Kumar Sahay & others vs. State of Jharkhand & others reported in 2008 (2) JLJR 543 and in the case of Bhola Nath Rajak & others vs. State of Jharkhand & others reported in 2014(2) JBCJ 343 (HC) by observing that the present recruitment exercise is not being held after a long delay and interregnum warranting such a course of shifting of cut-off date, which otherwise is not demonstrably arbitrary or unreasonable. However, it otherwise lies within the domain of the Executive to fix the upper age limit and cut-off date in any such recruitment exercise.
5. Having considered the rival pleas of the parties in the aforesaid factual backdrop, this Court found that similar issues relating to fixation of cut-off date for reckoning the upper age limit under the same Advertisement, has been considered by this Court and declined for specific reasons recorded in the judgment dated 07.12.2015, as cited by the counsel for the respondents. The relevant extracts of the judgment dealing with the contention of the parties, is quoted hereunder for better appreciation.
"I have considered the submission of the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record including the judgments relied upon. The specious reason for learned Division Bench to modify the cut off date in the recruitment exercise held in 2008 and 2013 is obvious from the reading of the judgment rendered in the case of Bhola Nath Rajak & Ors (Supra) itself at paragraphs 8 and 11 of the report which are quoted hereunder:
"8. Admittedly no examination for filling up the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) (Munsif) was held after 2008. In absence of regular examination for recruitment of Judicial Officers in the cadre of Civil Judge (Junior Division) (Munsif), the petitioners could not appear for the examination. In the meanwhile, the writ petitioners and similarly placed candidates have completed the maximum age of 35 years. By the reason of delay in holding the examination, the writ petitioners should not be disqualified from appearing in the examination.
11. Admittedly for recruitment to the post of Civil Jude (Junior Division) (Munsif), Jharkhand Public Service Commission issued advertisement in the year 2008 and thereafter Advertisement No. 4/2013 issued on 10.12.2013 and there is a gap of about more than 5 years between the earlier advertisement issued in the year 2008 and in the year 2013. As a consequence, the eligible candidates aspiring to appear for the Civil Judge (Junior Division) (Munsif) examination might have crossed their age between the period 2008 and 2013 and therefore, they did not have the opportunity of appearing in the examination. 3.
Having regard to the fact there there was no examination for recruitment for the post of Civil Jude (Junior Division) (Munsif), the cut off date for the recruitment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) (Munsif) of 2013 (Advertisement no. 4/2013) should be 31.1.2009 to render justice to the deprived eligible candidates due to over-age. Accordingly, the cut off date for fixing maximum age of 35 years in the impugned notification is ordered to be 31.1.2009 instead of 31.1.2013."
As is apparent from the opinion of the learned Court, these special facts do not apply to the present recruitment exercise as it is not being held after a long interregnum. There are no other grounds urged on behalf of petitioners in support of such a prayer. Cut off date fixed under the impugned advertisement for reckoning the upper age limit is not shown to be arbitrary or unreasonable on any demonstrable grounds. Fixation of cut off date in any such circumstances, always acts as a hardship to the candidate falling on other side of cut off date. That cannot be a ground for interference. Petitioners have therefore failed to make out a case for interference.
Therefore, this Court does not find any merit in the matter. Writ applications, are accordingly dismissed."
6. In view of the aforesaid reasons and discussions made, the instant petition also deserves the same fate. Accordingly, it is dismissed.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) Ranjeet/