Himanshi Deshmukh vs State of M.P

They are heard.

By this writ petition, the petitioners are praying for the following relief :-

"7.1 That, the minimum age limit of 24 years prescribed in column 3 of Schedule III read with Rule 8 (i) (a) of the Rules of 1991 may kindly be declared as ultra vires;

7.2 That, the respondents may kindly be directed to reconsider and amend the minimum age limit prescribed in the subjected Rules from 24 years to 21 years.;

7.3. That, the advertisement dated 22.12.2015 being illegal and being contrary to the Rules of 1991 may kindly be cancelled and set aside;

7.4. That, the respondents may further be directed to amend the advertisement dated 22.12.2015 by mentioning the minimum age limit from 24 years to 21 years and by mentioning the maximum age limit as 30 years in place of 40 years for appearing n the examination for the post of Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer and to republish the same after such amendment;

7.5. That, the respondents may further be directed not to move ahead on the advertisement dated 22.12.2015 without reconsidering the age criteria as mentioned herein above and the petitioners may kindly be permitted to appear in the examination dated 5.6.2016; Any other relief which this Hon''ble Court may consider necessary in the interest of justice, may also be granted in favour of the petitioners."

Petitioners, who are 23 years of age have filed this writ petition, challenging the validity of Rule 8(i) (a) and Column 3 of Scheduled III of Madhya Pradesh Public Prosecution (Gazetted) Services Recruitment Rules, 1991 wherein the minimum age limit for appearing in the examination to be conducted for the post of Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer has been fixed as 24 years as on first day of January of next following the date of commencement of selection.

By fixing the aforesaid age limit, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has treated the candidates who belong to the age group of 21 years to 24 years with discrimination as compared to the candidates who belong to the age group of 24 years to 40 years. Section 24(1) (b) of the Advocates Act, 1961 provides for admission of a person as an advocate who has completed the age of 21 years. The advertisement bearing no.02/ijh{kk/2015/22.12.2015 also provides that the compulsory educational qualification of an applicant is Degree in law from any recognised university or equivalent degree and it is further mentioned therein that preference shall be given to the applicant who got First Division marks or has higher qualification or has worked with bar for two years.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no justified reason has been assigned by the respondents for fixation of the minimum age limit 24 years and resultantly debarring the entitled candidates who belong to the age group of 21 years to 24 years.

Shri Sunil Jain, learned A.A.G. for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has drawn our attention to the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bindu v. State of M.P., reported as 2010 (4) M.P.L.J. 231 whereby the Division Bench has dismissed the writ petition by holding that fixation of minimum age limit of 24 years cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. It has also been held that the posts of ADPOs require special skill, which can be acquired by an incumbent practicing at Bar, hence, an incumbent with two years'' practise at Bar is to be preferred. The Division Bench has also held that the ADOPs are supposed to practise in the Court in criminal matters and represent the State Government in criminal cases, therefore, fixation of minimum age limit of 24 years has the purpose behind it of appointing the persons of special skill/experience having at-least 2 years'' practise at Bar. Para 14, 17 and 18 of the Division Bench decision Bindu v. State of M.P.(supra) are relevant which reads as under:-

"14. Thus, fixation of minimum age limit of 24 years cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary at all. Merely by the fact that the petitioner is having 60% and could clear five years'' LLB course at the age of 23 years cannot be made a ground to assail the vires of Rule 8 (1) () of the Rules of 1991. The posts of Civil Judges are different than that o ADPOs. The posts of ADPOs require special skill which can be acquired by an incumbent practicing at Bar, hence, an incumbent with two years'' practise at Bar is to be preferred. ADOPs are supposed to practise in the Court in criminal mattes and represent the State Government in criminal cases. Thus, fixation of minimum age limit of 24 years has the purpose behind it of appointing the persons of special skill/experience having at least 2 years'' practise at Bar. The intendment is that the persons appointed on priority basis are not absolutely raw hands.

At this stage, it is also submitted by Shri Parag Chaturvedi, counsel for petitioner that since the petitioner has appeared in the examination of ADPOs on the basis of interim order passed by this Court, she should be permitted to appear in the interview as now she attains the age of 24 years.

The submission cannot be accepted for the reason that the petitioner was not entitled to appear in the examination Davin not completed eligibility critereia and her merit has to be considered not with the students of this year but with the students of that year itself. She had not completed 24 years of age on 1-1-2009. Consequently, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as she was not entitled to appear in the written examination itself.

Resultantly, we find the petition to be devoid of merits. The same is hereby dismissed . No costs."

Shri Jain, learned Addl. Advocate General has drawn our attention to the circular No.lh 3-11/12/1/3 Bhopal dated 3.11.2012 whereby, the age has been increased to 40 years from 35 years for the General category and for S.C. & S.T., OBC, Government Servants, Nagar Sainik and women, the age has been increased to 45 years. Thereafter, Corrigendum has been issued vide Corrigendum 02/02/ijh{kk/2015, dated 29.1.2016 and accordingly, the age has been increased from 35 to 40 and from 40 to 45 years in Schedule I of the advertisement, which reads as under :-

2- e0iz0 ''kklu] lkekU; iz''kklu foHkkx ds ifji= dzekad lh0 3&11@2012@1@3] fnukad 13-01-2016 n~okjk fu/kkZfjr mPpre vk;q lhek ds ifjizs{; esa mDr foKkiu ds ifjf''k"B&1 esa mYysf[kr lkfj.kh fuEukuqlkj la''kksf/kr dh tkrh gS%&

dz0

vkosnd

e/; izns''k ds ewy fuokfl;ksa ds fy, vk;q lhek {o"kZ esa)

e/; izns''k ds ckgj ds vkosndksa ds fy, vk;q lhek {o"kZ esa)

1-

iq:"k vkosnd {vukjf{kr oxZ)

40

35

2-

iq:"k vkosnd {''kkldh;@fuxe@e.My@Lo''kklh laLFkk ds deZpkjh rFkk uxj lSfud)

45

35

3-

iq:"k vkosnd {vkjf{kr oxZ vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr@vU; fiNM+k oxZ)

35

35

4-

iq:"k vkosnd {vkjf{kr oxZ ''kkldh;@fuxe@e.My@Lo''kklh laLFkk ds deZpkjh rFkk uxj lSfud)

35

35

5-

efgyk vkosnd {vukjf{kr oxZ)

35

35

6-

efgyk vkosnd {''kkldh;@fuxe@e.My@Lo''kklh laLFkk ds deZpkjh rFkk uxj lSfud)

35

35

7-

efgyk vkosnd {vkjf{kr oxZ vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr@vU; fiNM+k oxZ)

35

35

In view of the aforesaid, nothing survives in this writ petition. The question about the fixation of minimum age has already been decided by the Division Bench of Principal Seat at Jabalpur, in the case of Bindu v. State of M.P. (supra) and the maximum age has been further increased from 40 to 45 years and from 35 to 50 years as stated herein above. No case for grant of any relief as prayed by the petitioners is made out.

W.P. No. 1673/2016, has no merit and is accordingly, dismissed.

All I.A.''s, also stands disposed of.