Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: age relaxation in Pranab Kumar Deka & 36 Ors vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 3 August, 2015Matching Fragments
WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014
15. Referring to the office memorandum (OM) dated 27.03.1980, Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that relaxation of upper age limit for entering into Government service is provided in the interest of fair dealing or in the public interest. By the OM dated 27.03.1980, age relaxation was permissible upto 40 years. Benefit of such age relaxation is extendable only to those who are in the service of the State Government of Assam. However, in case of direct recruitment not through the APSC such relaxation may also be allowed to those who are not in the service of the State Govt. of Assam. In case of recruitment through APSC, APSC should be consulted before relaxation is permitted. By subsequent OM dated 04.01.1992, relaxation of upper age limit has been extended up-to 45 years of age. Mr. Das submits that in so far recruitment to lower grades, such as Gr-IV and Gr-III, are concerned relaxation of upper age limit is also allowed to those who may not be in the service of the State Government but in case of higher service and posts where recruitment is through the APSC, such benefit can be extended only to those who are in the service of the State Government of Assam. Thus, in case of recruitment to higher grades, a classification is sought to be made between those who are in Government service under the Government of Assam and those who are not in service WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 under the Government of Assam. He submits that because the petitioners are not in service under the Government of Assam, they have been denied the benefit of age relaxation. He therefore submits that this classification is arbitrary and discriminatory and has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the OM i.e. relaxation of upper age limit of deserving candidates for entry into Government service in the interest of fair dealing or in the public interest. Therefore, the impugned OM dated 27.03.1980 as modified by the subsequent OM dated 04.01.1992 is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and should be declared as unconstitutional. In support of his submissions, Mr. Das, learned Senior Counsel, has placed reliance on the following decisions of the Apex Court:-
16. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel appearing for the Personnel Department has referred to the affidavit filed by the said Department in WP(C) No. 845/2014. He has asserted that the OM dated 27.03.1980 is neither in violation nor in transgression of the constitutional provisions. State of Assam is justified in permitting upper-age relaxation in respect of those candidates who are in the service of the Government of Assam which condition is applicable to higher grades in the Government service since the OM itself clarifies that for Gr-III and Gr-IV posts not only the persons serving under the Govt. of Assam but also other State Governments are eligible. Relaxation of upper-age limit is meant for the State Government employees who have already gained valuable experience working under the Government of Assam. Since petitioners are not in service under the Govt. of Assam, they are not eligible for condonation of their over-age. Mr. Mahanta, therefore, submits that the said OM, particularly Clause 2 (3) thereof, is not violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and no interference is called for. On WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 the other hand, he submits that if persons like the petitioners are granted the benefit of upper age relaxation, it will cause serious prejudice to those candidates who did not approach the authority in view of the age prescriptions in the advertisements and who do not have the wherewithal to approach the Court. Therefore, the contentions advanced by the petitioners cannot be accepted.
30. Though the OM dated 27.03.1980 can be set aside only on the above ground, since substantive arguments were advanced on the ground of violation of Article 14, Court is of the view that such objections need to be adjudicated upon to arrive at a comprehensive decision.
31. As already noticed above, the object of the OM dated 27.03.1980 is to ensure that in the matter of recruitment to Government service in the State of Assam, in the interest of fair dealing or in the public interest, over-age of an individual candidate can be condoned or relaxed. The objective is to ensure a fair dealing to a deserving candidate who is otherwise over-aged and thus ineligible to participate in the selection process. However, it needs to be pointed out that relaxation of upper-age limit in the case of a candidate seeking public employment is not to be granted in a routine manner. No candidate can demand as a matter of right that the upper age limit should be relaxed in his case. As noticed above, such relaxation would be permissible only in the interest of fair dealing or in the public interest. This was the object of the original OM dated 03.05.1951 as well as of the impugned OM dated 27.03.1980. While the OM dated 03.05.1951 did not prescribe any fixed age up-to which relaxation was permissible, the impugned OM WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014 as modified by the subsequent OM dated 04.01.1992 has extended the benefit upto 45 years. The OM dated 27.03.1980 in so far recruitment to posts through the APSC is concerned confines the benefit of age relaxation to those category of candidates who are "in the services of this State Government" meaning thereby those who are in the service of the State Government of Assam. All other candidates whether serving under other Governments or in the private sector or who are not in service at all i.e., unemployed, would stand excluded from such benefit. Therefore, a classification has been made between two groups. One group which is entitled to the benefit of age relaxation comprising of those who are in the service of the Government of Assam and the other group comprising of those who are not in the service of the Government of Assam.
39. Following the above discussion, this Court is of the unhesitant view that such a classification as made out in the impugned OM dated 27.03.1980 cannot stand the test of Article 14 of the Constitution and is liable to be struck down as such. Therefore, OM dated 27.03.1980 is held to be invalid on both the grounds as discussed above.
40. Following the above conclusion, respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for upper age relaxation on their individual merit. In each case, the appointing authority shall consider the prayer for age relaxation in consultation with the APSC in the light of the discussions made above. The fact that petitioners were allowed to appear in the selection process pursuant to orders of this Court shall also be borne in mind. Their recruitment shall however be dependent on their performance in the selection process as well as the decision taken by the appointing authority for relaxation of their over-age. WP(C) Nos. 845, 2138, 2157, 2178, 2180, 2238, 2003 and 846 of 2014