Laxita 'G' Sharma vs Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and Others

Jaishree Thakur, J.—The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appointment to the post of Junior Engineer I(Electrical) after relaxation of the minimum age prescribed in the Regulation which provides for a minimum age of 21 years.

The petitioner passed the Secondary School Examination in the year 2007 as conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer. The petitioner passed Diploma in Electronic Engineering in the year 2010 and thereafter, passed the degree course in Bachelor of Technology in Electrical and Electronics in the year 2013.

The respondent, namely, Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited, issued an advertisement to the recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer-I. Applications were invited through online process and applications were to be submitted by 14.11.2013. The written competitive examination was fixed on 21.12.2013. In the said advertisement, it was mentioned that the candidate applying must have attained the age of 21 years and should not have attained age of 35 years on the date of submitting the online application. Since the petitioner had not attained the minimum age of 21 years as prescribed she preferred to file the present writ petition seeking relaxation in the minimum age requirement.

It is contended that the minimum age of 18 years has been prescribed for the post of Junior Engineer I (Electrical) in various other departments of the State of Rajasthan and the same minimum age requirement should be fixed for the present selection. That, by not keeping the minimum age at 21 years, the petitioner is put at disadvantage and thus, the same is violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The respondents were called upon to file a reply and the respondents have taken a stand that in normal course, it would take 15 years for a person to complete his Secondary Education and further for three years of diploma and four years of degree. A person would normally be around 22-23 years on the completion of Bachelor degree. It is contended that the Rules have been framed based on a general principle and taking into consideration the minimum age required for obtaining a specific qualification Keeping this age in mind, the advertisement specified that the minimum age of a person seeking recruitment to the post of Junior Engineer(I) would be 21 years.

Counsel for the petitioner has filed a counter stating therein that she has qualified the examination during the pendency of the writ petition. She was allowed to submit application form through the intervention of the court and thus, she should now be considered for appointment.

We have perused the record of the case and heard the arguments advanced by both the counsel.

Counsel for the petitioner has argued that she is fully qualified for the post of Junior Electrical Engineer I and it is only on account of the minimum age prescribed that she would not be considered for appointment. This sets her at a disadvantage and is violative of her fundamental right as enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the case reported as Anita Kumar v. State of Rajasthan and another reported in 2005 (4) RLW 2351 to contend that prescribed age of 21 years is discriminatory and does not stand the test for valid qualification. It is argued that in other companies, the minimum age has been prescribed as 18 years and similarly, the same should be relaxed in the present case.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment reported as Union of India (UOI) Vs. Pushpa Rani and Others, to contend that in all matters relating to creation, abolition of posts, formation, restructuring of cadres, mode of recruitment, prescription of qualifications are matters which fall in the employer''s domain.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments raised by the counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the petitioner though qualified, was under age at the time of submission of the online application form for the post of Junior Engineer-I. A perusal of advertisement shows that the minimum age prescribed was 21 years. There is no averment in the petition that the qualification as prescribed is vitiated or has been fixed with any mala fide intention. In normal course, to acquire a degree in engineering, it takes a person 3 years of pre- nursery and nursery , 12 years of high schooling and another 5 years to obtain a degree in engineering, meaning thereby, a minimum of 20 years of education. Thus, fixing the age of 21 years is not arbitrary. It is not the jurisdiction of this court to decide the requirement of the employer. The case relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable in the facts of the present case and the same is distinguishable. In Anita Kumar v. State of Rajasthan supra the challenge was to the minimum age prescribed for the appointment to the post of a Sanskrit teacher which was fixed at 24 years whereas the minimum age prescribed for teachers in anther disciplines was fixed at 21 years. The Hon''ble Supreme Court held that fixing two different minimum age qualifications though for different disciplines, did not stand the test of a valid qualification. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Pushpa Rani and ors.(supra) has held that the court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of an employer regarding mode of recruitment or qualification and criteria of a selection. It has been held as under:--

"Before parting with this aspect of the case, we consider it necessary to reiterate the settled legal position that matters relating to creation and abolition of posts, formation and structuring/restructuring of cadres, prescribing the source/mode of recruitment and qualifications, criteria of selection, evaluation of service records of the employees fall within the exclusive domain of the employer. What steps should be taken for improving efficiency of the administration is also the preserve of the employer. The power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provision or is patently arbitrary or is vitiated due to mala fides. The Court cannot sit in appeal over the judgment of the employer and ordain that a particular post be filled by direct recruitment or promotion or by transfer. The Court has no role in determining the methodology of recruitment or laying down the criteria of selection. It is also not open to the Court to make comparative evaluation of the merit of the candidates. The Court cannot suggest the manner in which the employer should structure or restructure the cadres for the purpose of improving efficiency of administration." 12. The petitioner has not been able to prove that the qualification fixed is perverse, arbitrary or has been fixed with a mala fide intention. Article 16 of the Constitution of India ensures that there shall be a equality of opportunity in matters relating to appointment or employment. In the present case, the petitioner is only an exception having completed her education at a very young age. The petitioner has not been able to point out any discrimination being meted out to her. Thus, she would not be entitled to take the plea that there has been violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India vis-�-vis the petitioner.

In view of the above, we find no merit in this writ petition. The petitioner though allowed to submit her online application form and take the examination, would not be entitled to any benefit therein, as the order granting her interim relief was conditional and was to be based on the outcome and final adjudication of the court.

In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.