M. Karunanithi vs The State of Tamil Nadu

K. Chandru, J.—The Petitioner has come forward to challenge the notification issued by the second Respondent, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission vide advertisement dated 30.07.2009 insofar as it relates to the recruitment of Executive Officer Grade-I in the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Administration Department.

The grievance of the Petitioner was that the said notification fixed the minimum age as completion of 30 years for all candidates and in respect of maximum age it prescribes 35 years and in case of reserved categories it prescribes for certain higher age. The Petitioner has obtained a B.L. degree from the Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University and he was also a practicing lawyer. At the time of filing of writ petition, he was 25 years age and therefore, he challenges the prescription of minimum age as 30 years as unconstitutional and arbitrary.

It is the case of the Petitioner that in other services, the minimum age is prescribed as 21 and it was arbitrary on the part of the Respondents to fix 30 years as minimum age and the same is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

At the time, when the writ petition was filed, namely in August 2009, the writ petition was not at all admitted and it was adjourned from time to time and finally on 26.04.2010, it was admitted. On this time, the selection process would have been completed.

First of all, amendments have already been made to the recruitment rule itself and the law degree as an essential qualification is now been omitted by the State Government. In any event, it is open to the State Government while making the Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India to prescribe minimum and maximum age and the Petitioner is an outsider and he cannot challenge the rule manual, because he does not possess the age prescribed under the Rule.

In the matter of age relaxation comparing the other services for the purpose of attacking the Rule does not arise. Article 14 cannot be used as touch stone to compare one service rule with another service rule. It is suffice to state that it is for the employer to prescribe a qualification for a test which includes age qualification.

The notification issued by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission more particularly 6(A) cannot be challenged as the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission is only a recruiting agency. Unless the direction of the State Government is under challenge, the question of challenging the said notification will not arise.

The Supreme Court in Union of India v. S. Vinod Kumar reported in AIR2007 SCW 5989 dealt with a case of an employer wanting to recruit candidate and fixed a cut-off mark, the same was sought to be challenged. The Supreme Court repelled the contention and held that the fixing of cut-off marks cannot violate the principles of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It was held that the power of the employer to fix cut-off marks can neither be denied nor disputed. If cut-off mark is fixed on rational basis, no exception could be taken to the same.

In this context, it is necessary to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mallikarjuna Rao and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, . The following passage found in paragraph 12 is relevant and it may be usefully reproduced below;

Para12...The Constitution does not permit the Court to direct or advise the executive in matters of policy or to sermonize qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of legislature or executive....

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.