Ranveer Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Petitioner present in person.

Petitioner has sought following relief:--

(i) The petitioner may kindly be allowed with cost: and

(ii) The Rules of eligibility criteria which is prescribed under the M.P. Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 as not relaxation 5 years quota of S.C./S.T./O.B.C., be against the constitutional mandate enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

(iii) The Rules of the provided (sic) of the sub clause (b) of Section 7 of M.P. Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 which is framed be against the fundamental right and affected that right which is provided by the Constitution of India be declared ultra vires; and

(iv) The any other relief which this Hon''ble Court may think proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted.

The case of the petitioner is that under Rule 7 of M.R. Lower Judicial Service (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994, there should be relaxation of minimum 5 years to the maximum age limit to the person belonging to the S.C./S.T. and O.B.C. category. The petitioner belongs to O.B.C. category. It is submitted that in other services under the State of Madhya Pradesh there is relaxation up to 5 years to the persons belonging to the S.C./S.T. and O.B.C. category. In the services belonging to Labour Judiciary there is also a relaxation in the upper age limit up to 5 years for the aforesaid category, but in the examination for the post of Civil Judge there is no provision for relaxation of age up to 5 years. It is submitted that aforesaid rule may be struck down and direction may be issued to provide relaxation of 5 years in the upper age limit to the candidates belonging to the aforesaid category for appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Entry Level). It is also submitted that criteria for cut of date fixed in sub-rule (b) about the minimum age limit and upper age limit on the first day of January of next following year in which application for appointments are invited is also violative of Articles 13 (2), 14 and 16. He has placed reliance on a single Bench judgment of Orissa High Court in the case of Dr. Ipsita Mishra and Others Vs. State of Orissa and Others, .

Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules reads thus:--

Eligibility.--No person shall be eligible for appointment by direct recruitment to posts in category (i) of Rule 3 (1) unless:--

(a) he is a citizen of India;

(b) he has attained the age of 21 years and not completed the age of 35 years on the first day of January of the next following year in which application for appointment are invited;

Provided that the upper age limit shall be relaxable up to a maximum of three years if a candidate belongs to Schedule Castes, Schedule Tribes or other Backward Classes;

Provided further that the upper age limit of a candidate who is a Government Servant whether permanent or temporary) shall be relaxable up to 38 years;

Provided further that upper age limit of a candidate shall be relaxable by appropriate number of years, if no recruitment takes place for one year or more, to the Madhya Pradesh Lower Judicial Service.

(c) he possess a degree in Law of any recognized University;

(d) he has good character and is of sound health and free from any bodily defect, which renders him, unfit for such appointment.

This provision specifically provides minimum age of 21 years and upper age of 35 years on the first day of January of next following year in which application for appointments are invited. But the proviso of sub-rule (b) gives relaxation in the upper age limit up to maximum of three years for the candidates belong to S.C./S.T. and O.B.C. category. Meaning thereby, a care has been taken in respect of these three categories for providing three years relaxation in the upper age limit Merely in some other Rules or under the Circular of the State Government there is a provision relaxing 5 years age in respect of the aforesaid categories, it cannot be a ground to declare the aforesaid Rule as ultra vires. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sheela Gaur (Smt.) Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, has considered similar aspect and considering the aforesaid provision held thus:--

Chapter VI of Part VI of the Constitution deals with Subordinate Courts. Articles 234 provides that appointment of persons other than District Judges to the judicial services by State shall be made by the Governor of the State in accordance with the Rules made by him in that behalf after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and with the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to such State. Articles 235 provides that control over District Court and courts subordinate thereto including the posting and promotion of, and the grant of leave to, persons belonging to judicial services of State and holding any post inferior to the post of District Judge shall vests in the High Court. Articles 236 deals with the topic of ''Interpretation'' and amongst others, defines by sub-Articles (b) the expression "judicial service" to mean "a service consisting exclusively of persons intended to fill the post of District Judge and other civil judicial posts inferior to the post of District Judge." It becomes, therefore, obvious that the framers of the Constitution separately dealt with ''Judicial Services'' of the State and made exclusive provisions regarding recruitment to the posts of District Judges and other civil judicial posts inferior to the posts of the District Judge.

The service rules framed for appointment to public service by the State Government do not apply in respect of judicial services. Our aforesaid view is fortified by a decision of the Apex Court in State of Bihar and Another Vs. Bal Mukund Sah and Others, , wherein their Lordships have held that the provisions of Bihar Reservation of Vacancy in posts and services (for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes) Act, 1991, has no application to the recruitment of judicial officers in the State of Bihar since aforesaid rules have not been made in consultation in the High Court as required under Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution of India.

It would be useful to take note of the fact that selection and appointment to the post of Civil Judge were earlier made under M.P. Judicial Service (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1995, where-under maximum age prescribed for general category candidates was 30 years and 32 years for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes category. No relaxation for women candidates was provided. The aforesaid Rules were repealed by M.P. Lower Judicial Services (Recruitment, Conditions of Service) Rules, 1994 under which impugned advertisement has been issued. The examination and selection under 1995 Rules, was conducted by M.P. Public Service Commission in the years 1996, 1998, 2001, 2006 and 2007 and no relaxation to women candidates was provided in age limit in the absence of any provision for such relaxation in 1994 Rules.

Thus, 1997 Rules have not been in consultation with M.P. High Court as required under Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, in view of provisions contained in Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution of India and the exposition of law made by the Apex Court in State of Bihar and Another Vs. Bal Mukund Sah and Others, , the provisions contained in 1997 Rules cannot be applied. If benefit of extension of upper age limit by ten years is extended to women candidates, the same would be violative of Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the argument made by learned counsel for the petitioner that Clause-7 of the advertisement being contrary to 1997 Rules is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India is misconceived and cannot be accepted.

In Dr. Ami Lal Bhat Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, while dealing with question whether Rule 11(3) of Rajasthan Medical Services (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962, which prescribes the maximum age of the applicants with reference to 1st of January following the last date fixed for receipt of applications, Supreme Court held that basically the fixing of a cut off date for determining the maximum or minimum age required for a post is in the discretion of rule making authority or the employer as the case may be. It was further observed that one must accept that such a cut off date cannot be fixed with any mathematical position or in such a manner as would avoid hardship in all considerable 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 by itself would not make the cut off date per se arbitrary. Thus, from the aforesaid annunciation of law, it is apparent that it is within the discretion of the either the employer or rule making authority to fix maximum or minimum age required for a post.

It is trite law that it is for the concerned authority to make a provision for relaxation. The Court would not interfere with such a discretionary power in exercise of power of judicial review. [See: CSIR and Others Vs. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal and Another, . Merely, because the M.P. Public Service Commission and Chhattisgarh High Court have made the provisions for relaxation in the age in respect of women candidate that itself would not render the provision in respect of relaxation of age contained in 1994 Rules arbitrary or discriminatory.

As the question of validity of the aforesaid Rule in particular relaxation of the upper age limit has already been examined, and the validity of the aforesaid Rule has been found to be intra vires, there is no reason before us to differ with the judgment to declare the aforesaid Rule as ultra vires insofar as it relates to providing relaxation for three years in upper age limit to the candidates belonging to the S.C./S.T. and O.B.C.

Merely for the recruitment of Labour Judges there is some relaxation or the State Government has provided relaxation in the age limit up to 3 years in other service cannot be a ground to declare the aforesaid Rules as ultra vires. In the result, this petition has found without merit and is accordingly dismissed at admission stage with no order as to cots.