Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 248 (JK)

Anil Gupta v. State Of J. &K.

2009-05-18

BARIN GHOSH, MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ATTAR

body2009
1. This appeal is against an order dated 31st March, 2009 whereby and under several writ petitions have been dismissed. In the writ petitions, the petitioners therein contended that the rule which says that the minimum and maximum age of a candidate should be reckoned from the first date of the year in which the advertisement has been published for filling up vacancies, is bad. According to the petitioners, it should have been the first date of the year when they are entitled to apply in terms of the advertisement. In other words, they wanted to change the law. Court is not entitled to do so. 2. The basic facts leading to filing of the writ petitions are that the advertisement in question was published on 30th December, 2008. In terms of the rules, therefore, the maximum and minimum age is fixed as on 1st January, 2008. The petitioners want that to be shifted to 1st January, 2009, inasmuch as, the last date of responding to the said advertisement falls in the year 2009. 3. None of these writ petitions was filed in representative capacity. What the petitioners wanted in these writ petitions, if allowed, would affect a large number of people, who would cross the maximum age to respond to the advertisement. On that ground alone, the writ petitions should have been dismissed in limine. 4. The reasons for which the writ petitions have been dismissed otherwise, as would be evidenced from the order under appeal, are not interferable, according to us. 5. Before us, however, it has been contended that in terms of proviso to Section 124 of the Constitution of the State, which is akin to proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, though conditions of service framed by the Executive would hold the fort, but it is expressely made clear that the same may be altered by the Legislature at any point of time. It was contended that an opportunity must be given to the petitioners until such time Legislature applies its mind and alters the law governing the subject. We are of the considered view that even the Legislature cannot alter the law affecting those, who in terms of the law as stood on the date of 30th December, 2008, acquired a right to respond to that advertisement. 6. We are of the considered view that even the Legislature cannot alter the law affecting those, who in terms of the law as stood on the date of 30th December, 2008, acquired a right to respond to that advertisement. 6. It was next contended that whereas the petitioners are entitled, in accordance with the rules framed for appearing in IAS examination, to appear in such examination, but by reason of the subject rule, they are not entitled to appear in the subject examination. It was contended that the said state of affairs clearly demonstrates that there is no reasonable nexus to the object which was sought to be achieved by the rule. The basic rule is not under challenge. It is not being contended that the minimum and maximum age should not be reckoned from the first date of the year. The challenge is whether it should be the date of publication of the advertisement or the year of responding the advertisement. If the first is taken, in the facts and circumstances of this case, in view of publication of the advertisement on 30th December, 2008, one group is benefited, i.e., those who are within the maximum and minimum age group as on 1st January, 2008. The benefit given to this group would be altogether taken away in the event the year is shifted to the date of responding. In such event, the maximum and minimum age of responding would be 1st of January, 2009. In these matters, fixation of cut off date is not required to be supported by wisdom or reasons. The thing that is required to be seen is what was the object to be fulfilled. The object was to bring within the zone of consideration a group of people. If that is fixed with the date of publication of the advertisement or with the date of responding to the advertisement, the object is achieved in the manner the same is to be achieved. In the instant case, the rule being that the year should be fixed with the date of advertisement, the object had been achieved. The object was to bring within the scope of consideration those who would be within the maximum and minimum age as on 1st of January, 2008. 7. In the instant case, the rule being that the year should be fixed with the date of advertisement, the object had been achieved. The object was to bring within the scope of consideration those who would be within the maximum and minimum age as on 1st of January, 2008. 7. It was lastly contended that it would be appropriate for employment in the Government to ensure the best is selected and for that matter, an attempt must be made to bring within the zone of consideration the largest number of available people. No doubt, what has been submitted is sine-quo-non for initiating selection process to select people who would be entitled to serve the Government but that has to be done within the four corners of the law. In terms of the rule, the petitioners in the writ petitions as well as the appellants before us are not entitled to respond, inasmuch as they did not acquire the minimum age required for responding the advertisement as on 1st January, 2008. While thinking of the group of people who should be considered for appointment, people ineligible in accordance with the rules are not to be looked at. 8. We, accordingly, see no reason to interfere with the judgment and order under appeal and, accordingly, dismiss the appeal in limine.