Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 770 (MP)

Bindu Patel v. State of M. P.

2010-08-03

ARUN MISHRA, SUSHMA SHRIVASTAVA

body2010
ORDER Arun Mishra, J. -- 1. The petitioner has challenged the vires of Rule 8 (1) (a) and Column No.3 of Scheduled III of Madhya Pradesh Public Prosecution (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1991') which prescribes the minimum age limit to be 24 years for appearance in the examination for the post of Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer (in short 'ADPO'). 2. The petitioner has submitted that she had passed five years LLB course (P/1) on 16.7.2008 with 1st division. On 29.12.2008, advertisement (P/2) was pablished in Rozgar Nirman Employment newspaper for the post of ADPOs. 200 posts of ADPOs were advertised. Qualification for the afore-referred posts was the degree in law from any recognized University or equivalent and persons possessing 1st division or two years practice at Bar or higher qualification shall be preferred. 3. Rule 8 (1) (a) of the Rules of 1991 provides that the candidate must have attained the age as specified in Column (3) of Schedule III and below the age specified in Column (4) of the said schedule. In Column (3) of Schedule III of the Rules of 1991, the minimum age limit prescribed is 24 years whereas maximum age limit prescribed is 30 years. 4. The petitioner has submitted that fixation of age of 24 years is illegal and arbitrary whereas fixation of minimum age limit should be 21 years and maximum age limit should be 35 years. The petitioner was of 23 years and five months of age. For appearance in Civil Judges examination, the minimum age limit fixed is 21 years. Mind has not been applied while fixing the minimum age limit resulting into unjust and arbitrary operation of the Rules of 1991. Experience of 2 year's practice at Bar is not mandatory. Thus, deprivation to the candidates between 21 to 24 years is illegal. 5. A return has been filed by respondent No. 1/State contending that an incumbent can pass class 12th examination at the minimum age of 17 years and thereafter three year's are required for graduation and three years for obtaining degree in law. Thus, fixation of age as 24 years is in accordance with law. 6. 5. A return has been filed by respondent No. 1/State contending that an incumbent can pass class 12th examination at the minimum age of 17 years and thereafter three year's are required for graduation and three years for obtaining degree in law. Thus, fixation of age as 24 years is in accordance with law. 6. In Writ Petition No. 1710/2008, D.R. Sharma v. State of M.P. and others, an incumbent has assailed the age limit of 35 years, which has been dismissed vide order (R/l) dated 5.9.2008, the Gwalior Bench of this Court has opined that parity cannot be sought by the petitioner vis a vis to the Civil Judges as the posts of Civil Judge are different than that of ADPOs. 7. A return has also been filed by respondent No. 2/Public Service Commission supporting Rule 8 (1) (a) of the Rules of 1991. 8. Shri Parag Chaturvedi, counsel for petitioner has submitted that an incumbent having 1st division in LLB course has to be given priority. Fixation of age of 24 years for the post of ADPOs becomes arbitrary when for the post of Civil Judge, the minimum age limit prescribed is 21 years. There is no rhyme or reason to fix the minimum age limit for the post of ADPOs as 24 years. 9. Shri P.K. Kaurav, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No. l/State has supported Rule 8 (1) (a) of the Rules of 1991 as well as fixation of minimum age. He has also submitted that the posts in question are different. Parity between different services cannot be claimed. Fixation of age is within domain of policy decision of the State. It is not amenable for interference in writ jurisdiction. 10. Rule 8 of the Rules of 1991 is quoted below : "Rule 8 Condition of eligibility for direct recruitment. He has also submitted that the posts in question are different. Parity between different services cannot be claimed. Fixation of age is within domain of policy decision of the State. It is not amenable for interference in writ jurisdiction. 10. Rule 8 of the Rules of 1991 is quoted below : "Rule 8 Condition of eligibility for direct recruitment. In order to be eligible to be selected, a candidate must satisfy the following conditions, namely:- (1) Age-(a) He must have attained the age as specified in column (3) of Scheduled III and not attained the age as specified in column (4) of the said Schedule on the first day of January next following the date of commencement of selection (b) xxx xxx xxx xxx SCHEDULE III (See Rule 8) Name of Name of Post Minimum Maximum Educational Department in the service age limit age limit qualification 1 2 3 4 5 Home The Madhya 24 years 30 years A degree in Department Pradesh Law from any Prosecution University or Service equivalent and Assistant persons District possessing Prosecution first division Officer or 2 years practice at Bar or Higher Qualifications shall be preferred. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that there is no merit in the writ petition for the reasons to be mentioned hereinafter. 12. it is apparent that for the post of ADPOs, degree in law from any recognized University or equivalent qualification is necessary. It is necessary to mention here that the persons possessing 1st division in LLB course or two years' practice at Bar or higher qualification shall be preferred. 13.lt is apparent that a person after attaining the age of three years is given admission in nursery class and while passing 10+2 examination, normally he attains the age of 17 years and thereafter one has to complete three years' course of graduation and further three years' course of LLB. Even in the case of a student opting for five years' course can clear the five years course at the age of 22-23 years. As per Rules of 1991; priority is given to the student possessing 1st division in LLB course or two years' practice at Bar or higher qualification. Considering the priority clause of two years' practice at Bar or having higher qualification than LLB course i.e. LLM etc. As per Rules of 1991; priority is given to the student possessing 1st division in LLB course or two years' practice at Bar or higher qualification. Considering the priority clause of two years' practice at Bar or having higher qualification than LLB course i.e. LLM etc. it is obvious that practice of 2 years at Bar is to be preferred or higher qualification of LLB/LLM etc. It would obviously consume additional years after passing of LLB course. 14. Thus, fixation of minimum age limit of 24 years cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary at all. Merely by the fact that the petitioner is having 60% and could clear five years' LLB course at the age of 23 years cannot be made a ground to assail the vires of Rule 8 (1) (a) of the Rules of 1991. The posts of Civil Judges are different than that of ADPOs. The posts of ADPOs require special skill which can be acquired by an incumbent practising at Bar hence, an incumbent with two years' practice at Bar is to be preferred. ADPOs are supposed to practise in the Court in criminal matters and represent the State Government in criminal care. Thus, fixation of minimum age limit of 24 years has the purpose behind it of appointing the persons of special skill/experience having at least 2 years' practice at Bar. The intendment is that the persons appointed on priority basis are not absolutely raw hands. 15. The Supreme Court in Dr. Amilal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1997 SC 2964 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 has 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. The Supreme Court has further observed that the matter of fixation of the age limit is a policy matter and the Court cannot interfere in such a policy matter. Fixation of age is not shown to be arbitrary one. In the instant case, as matter is realm of policy, we decline to interfere. 16. The Supreme Court has further observed that the matter of fixation of the age limit is a policy matter and the Court cannot interfere in such a policy matter. Fixation of age is not shown to be arbitrary one. In the instant case, as matter is realm of policy, we decline to interfere. 16. A Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1710/2008, D. R. Sharma v. State of M.P. and others vide order (R/1) dated 5.9.2008 has observed that parity cannot be claimed by ADPOs in the matter of fixation of age with the Civil Judges; two posts being different. In this context, the apex Court in V.M. Gadra and others v. M.G. Diwan and others, (1996) 3 SCC 1 454 has also laid down that parity between different services cannot be claimed. The Court has no power to grant relief on the ground of parity between different services. The services of Civil Judges are different than that of ADPOs. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim inter se parity, besides we have found justification in fixing of the minimum age limit to be 24 years for the post considering the priority given to the ADPOs having two years' practice at Bar and priority is also given to the person having higher qualification than that of LLB. 17. At this stage, it is also submitted by Shri Parag Chaturvedi, counsel for petitioner that since the petitioner has appeared in the examination of ADPOs on the basis of interim order passed by this Court, she should be permitted to appear in the interview as now she attains the age of 24 years. The submission cannot be accepted for the reason that the petitioner was not entitled to appear in the examination having not completed eligibility criteria and her merit has to be considered not with the students of this year but with the students of that year itself. She had not completed 24 years of age on 1.1.2009. Consequently, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as she was not entitled to appear in the written examination itself. 18. Resultantly, we find that the petition to be devoid of merits, the same is hereby dismissed.