Jharkhand High Court
Anjani Kumar And Ors vs Personnel And Adminis Reform on 3 December, 2015
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
WP(S) No. 5741 of 2015
----
1.Anjani Kumar
2.Ranjan Kumar Sinha
3.Raj Kishore Yadav ... ... Petitioners
-Versus-
1.The State of Jharkhand
2.Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through its Chairman, Dhurwa, Ranchi
3.The Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Dhurwa, Ranchi ... ... Respondents
----
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE APARESH KUMAR SINGH
----
For the Petitioners :Mr.M.P.Sinha
For the Respondents :M/s. M.S.Anwar, Sr. Advocate, S. Choudhary &
T. Mistri .
----
02- 03.12.2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Out of these three petitioners herein, petitioner nos.1 and 2 belong to the General category and third petitioner belongs to OBC category, as per submission of the counsel for the petitioners. They are aggrieved by the fixation of cut off date 1.8.2015 for reckoning the upper age limit in appointment on the post of Pharmacist/Technician, the recruitment process of which is being undertaken by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission under Advertisement no.10/2015, Annexure 1. Petitioners allege that fixation of cut off date 1.8.2015 laying down the upper age limit is wholly arbitrary as for the first time after creation of State the instant recruitment exercise is being held and many eligible persons including the petitioners would be rendered ineligible by fixation of cut off date of upper age limit. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they have the educational qualification for the post of Pharmacist and no appointment has either been made for last 15 years for the said post. The petitioners also questioned the minimum educational qualification for the post of Pharmacist under the said advertisement, which prescribes passing of matriculation exam prior to 1994. It is submitted that by that stretch of logic, persons who have passed matriculation exam before 1994, would in any case be rendered ineligible as per the cut off date. Therefore, interference is required in the matter. Counsel for the petitioners has also pointed out that though statements have not been made relating to the age and date of birth of the petitioners in the petition but on specific instruction, he submits that petitioner 2. no.1 has born in November,1974, petitioner no.2 in January,1973 and petitioner no.3 in February,1979. The third petitioner though belong to OBC category but is out of purview of the reservation as he belongs to the creamy layer.
Learned senior counsel for the respondent-Commission submits that fixation of upper age limit and cut off date for carrying out the recruitment exercise is neither arbitrary nor contrary to the Rules. The age limits for different categories i.e. 35 for unreserved, 37 for extremely backward classes, 40 for scheduled caste and scheduled tribes and 38 for female and other backward classes including backward class-II, is in the tune with the circular of the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, which applies to such recruitment exercise within the Sate. The fixation of the cut off date is also in line with the Government Circular on the point as per which the vacancies which are notified. It is submitted that upper age limit are reckoned as per the computation of the vacancies up to a particular date i.e. 1st January in most of the cases and in that circumstances the cut off date for reckoning upper age limit is laid down as 1.8.2015. It is submitted that on similar matter relating to fixation of cut off date and upper age limit interference has been declined by this Court vide judgment rendered in the case of Anil Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & ors., WP(S) No.2505/2015 dated 14.9.2015 and in the case of Durga Thakur & ors Vs. State of Jharkhand & ors., WP(S) No.4619/2015 dated 28.9.2015. It is submitted that those recruitment have also been undertaken in the current year by the Staff Selection Commission. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that petitioners being beyond the upper age as per the cut off date fixed in their respective categories are, therefore, ineligible and this Court should not entertain the writ petition on that count itself.
Having considered the submissions of the parties and the relevant facts pleaded, in the first place it is to be observed that necessary material particulars relating to the individual petitioners are lacking in the writ petition specifically in relation to their age, date of birth etc. though counsel for the petitioners has during course of submissions sought to supply the said information on instruction. Be that as it may, as has been held in the case of Anil Kumar 3. (supra) and Durga Thakur (supra), fixation of upper age limit on the plea of hardship that the recruitment test is being held after a long time by the respondent-State through Commission, cannot be a ground to render the fixation of cut-off date as arbitrary. Fixation of upper age limit is based upon rational criteria, which is only open to challenge if it is demonstrably arbitrary and does not have rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Fixation of upper age limit or cut-off date always operate as hardship to one or the other candidates depending upon which side of the cut-off date such candidate falls.
Fixation of upper age limit in the instant exercise is based upon the Circular of the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha which, in itself, is not under challenge. The plea of delay in recruitment exercise over a period of several years, as raised in the case of Anil Kumar (Supra) and Durga Thakur (Supra) in the aforesaid cases have been negatived on these considerations. Petitioners also have relied upon the judgments rendered by this Court in the case of Bhola Nath Rajak & others vs. State of Jharkhand & others [2014(1) J C R 616 (Jhr) as also in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Saha & others vs. State of Jharkhand & others [2008 (3) J C R 267 (Jhr.) and L.P.A. No. 661/2015, order dated 03.11.2015.
The judgments rendered in the aforesaid cases are in a different context and, therefore, interference in the fixation of upper age limit and the cut-off date can not be made when the petitioners have failed to show that it is arbitrary and in violation of rules. Since the petitioners are ineligible on the basis of upper age limit and cut-off date fixed under the instant recruitment exercise under advertisement no. 10/2015, it is not necessary to enter into the other grounds urged relating to the requirement of passing of matriculation before 1994 as it would be an academic exercise in the present matter. However, that question is left open for consideration in an appropriate case.
In that view of the matter, present writ petition does not have merit, which is accordingly dismissed.
Pandey (Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. )