Sunny Kumar Singh vs State of Jharkhand and Others

Virender Singh, C.J.—The petitioner, being not eligible for not having completed 19 years on 01.08.2014, the cut-off date with regard to the age as indicated in the Advertisement No. 1/2014 issued by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (respondent No. 5) for the appointment of Junior Engineers in the Department of Road Construction, Water Resources and Drinking Water and Sanitation, has thrown challenge to rule 8 of the Jharkhand Sub-Ordinate Engineering Cadre (Junior Engineer, Civil/Electrical/Mechanical) Service Rules, 2013 (for short Service Rules of 2013) asserting that there appears to be no rationale in fixing the age as 19 years, that too on 01.08.2014 which is mid of the year whereas in many other Departments minimum age prescribed is 18 years.

The date now fixed by the respondent No. 3 for conducting written test is February, 1st 2015.

Mr. Anand, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner, immediately after advertisement was notified somewhere in July, 2014, moved representation before the concerned Department where the matter was deliberated upon and ultimately the Secretary to the concerned Department prepared a favourable note for amendment in Service Rules of 2013, suggesting slashing down of minimum age from 19 to 18 years but on account of Model Code of Conduct, the said note could not be placed before the Cabinet for its approval. Learned counsel has brought our attention to the said note available on page 26 of the supplementary affidavit annexed with the writ application.

Learned counsel submitted that not only the petitioner but thousands of other candidates, who had not attained the age of 19 years on 01.08.2014 have been deprived of the opportunity of participating in the selection process whereas they all are having Diploma in Engineering, which is also one of the eligibility criteria. Learned counsel submitted that losing an opportunity on account of fixing the age as 19 years instead of 18 years would cause grave prejudice to the petitioner and all other similarly situated candidates. Hence, this petition.

Per contra Md. Sohail Anwar, Senior Advocate appearing for respondent Nos. 5 and 6, submitted that as many as 24000 candidates are appearing in the ensuing examination for 1000 posts of Junior Engineers and that at this belated stage the petitioner wants to put the entire selection process on hold. He submitted that the petitioner had ample time to throw challenge to rule 8 of Service Rules of 2013 but he had been sleeping over the matter and is now awake from deep slumber at the fag end of the day. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that even otherwise uniform pattern has been adopted for all the candidates for the post of Junior Engineers, therefore the petitioner cannot call it arbitrary or discriminatory action of the respondents so as to attract Article 14 of the Constitution. He, thus, prays for dismissal of the writ petition in limine itself.

Having heard learned counsel for both the sides, we do not find any reason to show our indulgence. So far as Service Rules of 2013 are in place and not amended, they have to be followed. We are conscious of the fact that the representation of the petitioner at one stage was considered favourably by the Secretary of the concerned Department but could not be brought to its logical end for any reason whatsoever, still any indulgence by the Court at this stage would not be in larger public interest when as many as 24000 candidates are appearing in the selection process scheduled for February, 1st 2015.

Viewed thus, the instant petition merits dismissal at this stage itself. Ordered accordingly.

I.A. No. 198 of 2015 also stands disposed of accordingly.