Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 539 (HP)

Manoj Rajan v. STATE OF HP

2013-06-14

A.M.KHANWILKAR, KULDIP SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT A.M.KHANWILKAR, J. 1. HEARD counsel for the parties. 2. THE petitioner in this petition has challenged the decision of the Authorities to exclude him from consideration on account of being over-aged. As per the eligibility criteria, the candidate must have attained the age of 21 years and must not have attained the age of 35 years on 1st January, 2013. The exception to that Rule can be discerned from Clause 7.3 of the advertisement. Clause 7.3.2 provides for relaxation of age by five years for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes/Persons with disabilities and Children/Grand Children of Freedom Fighters of Himachal Pradesh as declared by the Government from time to time. The relaxation is also available to Ex-servicemen candidates of Himachal Pradesh. Clause 7.3.3, on which emphasis has been placed by the petitioner, provides for relaxation of age in respect of Government servant, who is holding substantive/officiating/contractual/Adhoc appointment in Himachal Pradesh Government or in High Court or any Court subordinate thereto and employees of the Public Sector Undertakings/Corporations/substantially owned or controlled by the Himachal Pradesh Government. In respect of such candidates, the age specified is not having attained the age of 42 years on the first day of January of the year. From the plain wording of these excepted categories specified in the advertisement, it is applicable only in respect of Himachal Pradesh Government servants or employees of High Court or any Court subordinate thereto and of the Public Sector Undertakings/Corporations/substantially owned or controlled by the Himachal Pradesh Government and none else. That is a matter of policy of the Department, which has issued the advertisement through Public Service Commission. That policy cannot be re-written by the Court much less by an interpretative process, which is the subtle attempt of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submits that the principle underlying Clause 7.3.3 is that the candidates working as Government servants be it of State Government or Central Government - acquire invaluable experience and that experience would come handy to the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service. Thus, the same policy must be made applicable to Government servants working with the Central Government or Public Sector Undertakings/Corporations substantially owned or controlled by the Central Government or any other Government. We are afraid, this argument, if accepted would result in re-writing of the policy as articulated in the advertisement. That is not permissible. 3. Thus, the same policy must be made applicable to Government servants working with the Central Government or Public Sector Undertakings/Corporations substantially owned or controlled by the Central Government or any other Government. We are afraid, this argument, if accepted would result in re-writing of the policy as articulated in the advertisement. That is not permissible. 3. COUNSEL for the respondent-Commission has relied on the unreported decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Bhati and others vs. Union P.S.C. & another1, which rejected somewhat similar argument, as it would result in interfering with the policy of the Government. 4. RELIANCE is also placed on another unreported decision of Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi in the case of Md. Shamim Anjun and another vs. The State of Jharkhand and others2, which is on the same lines. Learned Advocate General, appearing for the State on the other hand has also pressed into service reported decision of the Apex Court in the case of Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Corporation Federation vs. B. Narasimha Reddy and others3. In para 18 of this decision, the Apex Court has expounded that it is well settled law that Article 14 forbids class legislation, however, it does not forbid reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation. It is permissible in law to have class legislation provided the classification is founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are 1 SLP (C) No. 7999 of 1994 2 WP(S) Nos. 289 and 322 of 2003 dated 22nd January, 2003 3 (2011) 9 SCC 286 grouped together from others left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. 5. APPLYING the principle stated in this decision, we have no hesitation in taking the view that it is not possible to sustain the challenge to Rule 11.3 of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service Rules, 1973 or for that matter Clause 7.3.3 in the advertisement in question. 6. THE petition, therefore, fails. The same is dismissed.