Dr. M.A. Bose vs State of Tamil Nadu and Others

A. Kulasekaran, J.—The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a Writ of declaration declaring that the eligibility criteria fixed in

Clause 15 (1) of the prospectus for the academic year 2008-2009 to admission to the three year higher speciality course in Tamil Nadu

Government Medical Colleges issued by the third respondent is illegal, unlawful, unreasonable, arbitrary and hence null and void and

consequentially direct the respondents to consider the petitioner''s candidature for such decree on merits and without reference to petitioner''s age

in accordance with law.

Mr. Srinivas, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Doctor, aged 64 years, completed M.S. Degree in

General Surgery in the year 1982 and practising in Virudhunagar District; that he applied for a seat in Mch degree for Neurosurgery/Plastic

Surgery in the year 2007 and wrote the entrance examination; that in that discipline, only four seats were available put of which two seats were

reserved for candidates from Government service and two seats for candidates from private practice, but the petitioner was ranked in serial No. 3

among private candidates, hence, he could not secure the admission; that, the third respondent issued prospectus relating to admission to three

year higher speciality course in Tamil Nadu Medical Colleges for 2008-2009 by surprisingly fixing maximum age limit of 50 years as on

30.6.2008, which is evident in Clause 15(1) of the said prospectus; that in view of the said condition, the petitioner was disentitled to apply, which

is unfair, unlawful, illegal and the same was suddenly introduced only in the academic year 2008-2009, hence, the present writ petition has been

filed for declaration to declare that the eligibility criteria fixed in Clause 15 (1) of the prospectus for the academic year 2008-2009 is null and void

and consequentially direct the respondents to consider the petitioner''s candidature for Mch degree on merits.

On the above contention, this Court heard Mrs. Dakshayini Reddy, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, who

submitted that the respondents are spending huge amount to each and every student of higher speciality course with the expectation to avail their

knowledge and service to the society by appointing them in Government service after completion of the course, keeping in mind the duration of the

course is three years and age of superannuation is 58 for all Government servants, hence, the said condition is valid, reasonable and nexus to the

object to be achieved and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

This Court considered the submission of the counsel for both sides and perused the records placed. Classification based on minimum age

prescribed for taking a particular examination is not beyond the powers of educational authorities, but only to obtain best material for a

professional course. Prescribing determination of maximum or minimum age of the candidate for a particular course is not per se arbitrary.

Basically, fixing of a cut off date for determining the maximum or minimum age required for a particular course is in the discretion of the authorities.

Followed Dr. Ami Lal Bhat Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, , wherein in para No. 5, it was held thus:

This contention, in our view, is not sustainable. In the first place the fixing of a cut-off date for determining the maximum or minimum age

prescribed for a post is not, per se, arbitrary. Basically, the fixing of a cut-off date for determining the maximum or minimum age required for a

post, is in the discretion of the rule-making authority or the employer as the case may be. One must accept that such a, cut-off date cannot be fixed

with any mathematical precision and in such a manner as would avoid hardship in all conceivable cases. As soon as a cut-off date is fixed there will

be some persons who fall on the right side of the cut-off date and some persons who will fall on the wrong side of the cut-off date. That cannot

make the cut-off date, per se, arbitrary unless the cut-off date is so wide off the mark as to make it wholly unreasonable. This view was expressed

by this Court in Union of India (UOI) and Another Vs. Parameswaran Match Works and Others, and has been reiterated in subsequent cases. In

the case of A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad and Another Vs. B. Sarat Chandra and Others, the relevant service rule stipulated that

the candidate should not have completed the age of 26 years on the 1st day of July of the year in which the selection is made. Such a cut-off date

was challenged. This Court considered the various steps required in the process of selection and said,

When such are the different steps in the process of selection the minimum or maximum age of suitability of a candidate for appointment cannot be

allowed to depend upon any fluctuating or uncertain date. If the final stage of selection is delayed and more often it happens for various reasons,

the candidates who are eligible on the date of application may find themselves eliminated at the final stage for no fault of theirs. The date to attain

the minimum or maximum age must, therefore, be specific and determinate as on a particular date for candidates to apply and for the recruiting

agency to scrutinise the applications.

This Court, therefore, held that in order to avoid uncertainty in respect of minimum or maximum age of a candidate, which may arise if such an age

is linked to the process of selection which may take an uncertain time, it is desirable that such a cut-off date should be with reference to a fixed

date. Therefore, fixing an independent cut-off date, far from being arbitrary, makes for certainty in determining the maximum age.

In the absence of any legal or constitutional infirmity, the Court will not substitute its judgment for that of academicians as if sitting in appeal. The

Court can interfere if there is no principle according to which the State has fixed the age limit. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that fixation of

age limit is discrimination and unreasonableness. The reasonableness has to be determined with reference to the circumstances. Article 14 only

needs that persons similarly circumstanced should be treated alike, both in privileges conferred and liability imposed. The principle of equality does

not mean that every law must have universal application for all persons who are not by nature, attainment or circumstances in the same position, as

the varying needs of different classes of persons often require separate treatment.

Age form a rational basis in relation to the object of a particular subjects legislation, hence, fixing 50 years as maximum age as on 30.06.2008

by the respondents is perfectly valid.

The respondents contended that the duration of the superspeciality course is three years, for which lot of amount is being spent by the

respondents for imparting such course. After completion of the course, the services of those persons are necessarily to be utilised for the society. If

the persons exceeds 50 years of age as on the date of entering into the said course, the object of imparting such education cannot be achieved as

minimum period of five years is required to be in Government service, which period cannot be held as unreasonable.

An argument was advanced by the petitioner that in the event of not rendering service to the State Government, the candidate is liable to the

Government certain amount towards compensation, which even the petitioner agrees to pay is concerned, the payment of compensation alone

cannot fulfil the conditions stipulated or object sought to be achieved.

In the case on hand, the petitioner is about 64 years old. Of course, his spirit to pursue specialised education at this age is appreciable, but if

there is direct nexus between fixation of age limit and the object of the Government, the latter alone prevails. It is needless to mention that the

petitioner cannot be inducted in Government service after completion of the superspeciality course, hence, this Court is of the view that the

conditions imposed in clause 15(1) of the prospectus for the academic year 2008-2009 to admission to the three year higher speciality course in

Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges issued by the third respondent is valid and reasonble.

In the result, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.