Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1240 (JHR)

Shailesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2015-10-07

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2015
ORDER : Heard counsel for the parties. 2. In the Advertisement No. 06/2015, issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred as 'JPSC'), Clause-4(i) thereof prescribes relaxation of five years upper age limit to Government employees serving the Government of Jharkhand over a period of continuous three years. This benefit is not extended to the contractual employee or the daily wage employee under the State. Petitioner is aggrieved with this part of the advertisement which has been issued for direct recruitment of Assistant Engineers (Civil/Mechanical) in Road Construction Department, Water Resources Department, and Drinking Water and Sanitation Department. 3. Petitioner admittedly is the employee of Railways working on the post of Junior Engineer (Estimate) in the office of Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), South Eastern Railway, Ranchi. Petitioner has assailed the impugned Clause on the grounds that they are discriminatory. The classification is not valid on the test of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 4. Advertisement issued by the UPSC for different posts enclosed at Annexure-3 series have been relied upon to submit that if such a relaxation in upper age limit is extended to serving employees, it should be irrespective of the State Government/Union Territories or Union Government under which they are serving, as the case is for recruitment undertaken by the UPSC. It is submitted by the petitioner that he is working in Railway Projects executed within the State of Jharkhand on the basis of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the respondent Government of Jharkhand and Ministry of Railway, Government of India. On that basis also, petitioner may be considered entitled for age relaxation as he is serving in the projects being executed with the State Government. Learned counsel, in support of the aforesaid submissions, has stated that classification does not have a distinct object to be achieved as merit should alone be the criteria for all serving employees, whether be it Jharkhand Government or any other Government in matters of recruitment. Therefore, he has sought quashing of the impugned Clause-4(i) or in the alternative, to grant him some age relaxation as he has completed three years of regular service in the Central Government. 5. Respondent State and JPSC are represented. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that fixation of upper age limit and relaxation therein are matters of policy in the domain of Executive. 5. Respondent State and JPSC are represented. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that fixation of upper age limit and relaxation therein are matters of policy in the domain of Executive. There are valid reasons for such classification in order to give an opportunity to serving employees of the Government of Jharkhand who have completed more than three years of continuous service, so that they may be able to upgrade their career. It is also submitted that such relaxation is consciously not granted to contractual or daily wage employees under the State Government. Therefore, no interference is required in the impugned clause. 6. I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and given anxious thought to the grounds urged on behalf of the petitioner. Whether impugned clause is valid in the eye of law or not, is to be tested on the touchstone of reasonable classification, as conceived under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The category of employees covered under the said clause, are those who are serving employees of Government of Jharkhand. They definitely form a distinct class. Therefore, intelligible differentia for making the aforesaid category is evident. The next question is, whether it has a rationale nexus with the object sought to be achieved? The object on a prima facie appreciation of the issue, appears to be to ensure opportunities of upgradation in service career to such employees who have been serving the Government of Jharkhand for more than three years. Jharkhand Government in its wisdom has chosen to give the aforesaid relaxation, so that those who have served the State Government, may be enabled to serve it in a upgraded capacity after remaining in the State of Jharkhand for a sufficient length of time. 7. This recruitment apparently is also for the post of Assistant Engineer in different works department under the Government of Jharkhand and is not in the nature of a recruitment by the Government of India conducted by the UPSC. The recruitment undertaken by the UPSC are ordinarily for All India Services or the Central Government or such like services where no such restrictive relaxation of age can be made as it is a Pan India Recruitment Exercise. The present recruitment under the State Government of Jharkhand is open to the eligible candidates from all over India. The recruitment undertaken by the UPSC are ordinarily for All India Services or the Central Government or such like services where no such restrictive relaxation of age can be made as it is a Pan India Recruitment Exercise. The present recruitment under the State Government of Jharkhand is open to the eligible candidates from all over India. However, the classification made to ensure relaxation to the serving employees under Jharkhand Government, cannot be said to be without a rationale nexus with the object sought to be achieved. On the touchstone of the permissible reasonable classification therefore, the impugned Clause-4(i) does not suffer from violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, challenge to the said clause is not tenable on those grounds. Petitioner apparently is a serving employee of Railways and on the basis of a MOU with the State Government, he cannot come in the category of serving State Government employee to seek relaxation of upper age limit, as provided under Clause-4(i). It is also not out of context to observe that the fixation of upper age limit and relaxation therein are matters of Executive Policy and are subject to challenge only if they fail to meet the Constitutional and legal requirements, specifically under Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 8. Considered all legal grounds, this Court does not find that the petitioner has been able to make out a prima facie case for interference in the impugned clause. Accordingly, the writ petition has to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed.