Ashutosh Bhatt vs Uttarakhand Public Service Commission And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent no. 2 & 3 and Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned Advocate for the Public Service Commission.

Prescription of the maximum age of 42 years as on 01.07.2019, in the advertisement issued by the Public Service Commission on 30.07.2019 inviting applications to fill up 46 posts of Assistant Conservator of Forests, is under challenged in this writ petition. The petitioner's date of birth is 09.05.1976, and he completed 42 years of age on 09.05.2018, more than a year before the cut-off date prescribed in the advertisement.

Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned Advocate for the petitioner, would submit that, since a requisition was issued by the State Government to fill up these 46 posts on 20.08.2014 and the inordinate delay in issuing the advertisement is solely on account of the lethargy exhibited by the Public Service Commission, the stipulation of the maximum age limit should be reckoned from the recruitment year in which the State Government had called upon the Public Service Commission to initiate the process of selection. Learned counsel would rely on "Sanjeev Kumar Sahay and others Vs. State of Jharkhand High Court and others" (order of the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court reported in 2008 3 JCR 267) in this regard. The order of the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court is a consent order.

While it does appear that the initial requisition made by the State Government to the Public Service Commission was on 20.08.2014 and, if the Public Service Commission had issued the advertisement soon thereafter, the petitioner would have been eligible, the question which necessitates examination is not why the Public Service Commission had delayed initiating the process of recruitment, but whether it was permissible for the Public Service Commission to prescribe an anterior date, instead of 01.07.2019, for reckoning both the minimum and the maximum age limit.

Rule 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Forest Service Rules, 1993 as amended relates to age. Thereunder, a candidate for direct recruitment must have attained the age of 21 years and must not have attained the age of more than 42 years on the first day of July of the calendar year in which vacancies for direct recruitment are advertised by the Commission. It is unnecessary for us to refer to the proviso, since the petitioner admittedly belongs to the General Category and not to any reserved category. The requirement of Rule 10 is to reckon the maximum age limit on the first day of July of the calendar year in which vacancies for direct recruitment are advertised by the Commission. Since the Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on 30.07.2019, the calendar year would be 2019 and, consequently, it is the first day of July, 2019 which would be the date on which the minimum and maximum age limit is required to reckoned. Admittedly, the petitioner does not fulfill the requirement of being below 42 years age on 01.07.2019, since he has completed 42 years of age more than a year prior thereto on 09.05.2018 itself.

Reliance placed by the petitioner on the Division Bench judgment of the Jharkhand High Court, on "Sanjeev Kumar Sahay Vs. State of Jharkhand", is of no avail. Rule 4(M) therein made those persons eligible, who were eligible in the recruitment year in which the process of recruitment was initiated by the appointing authority. In the present case, the process of recruitment was initiated by the appointing authority (State Government) in the year 2014 and if a Rule, similar to Rule 4(M), (the scope of which was under consideration before the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court), had existed in the State of Uttarakhand, the petitioner's age should then have been reckoned on the first day of July, 2014.

Unlike Rule 4(M), the scope of which fell for consideration before the Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court, Rule 10(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Forest Service Rules, 1993 requires the minimum and maximum age of a candidate to be determined on the first day of July of the calendar year in which vacancies for direct recruitment are advertised by the Commission which is 01.07.2019.

In the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court would not take upon its the task of prescribing a cut-off date other than what is stipulated in the Rules made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 15, on which reliance is placed by Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioner, requires the appointing authority to reckon and intimate the Commission about the number of vacancies to be provided for reserved candidates during the course of the year, as also the number of vacancies to be reserved in favour of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.

Despite existence of vacancies ever since the State of Uttarakhand came into being on 09.11.2000, the fact remains that the State Government determined the vacancies and intimated the Commission of 46 vacancies being in existence, only in the year 2014. While it does appear that there was a delay in issuing the advertisement inviting applications for appointment to 45 posts, it is unnecessary for this Court to dwell on this issue since Rule 10 categorically stipulates that the cut-off date, for prescribing the minimum and maximum age limit, is the first day of July of the calendar year in which vacancies in the posts are advertised by the Commission.

Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel for the petitioner, would then rely on Rule 28 which confers power on the State Government to relax the rigour of the Rules. Any such request, for relaxation under Rule 28, can only be addressed to the State Government and not to the Court.

Leaving it open to the petitioner to do so, the writ petitioner fails and, is, accordingly, dismissed. We have no reason to doubt that, on a representation being made to them by the petitioner, the State Government would consider the said representation at an early date. No costs.