Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 300 (MP)

Bhaskar Sharma v. State of M. P.

2016-04-11

SHEEL NAGU

body2016
ORDER 1. The present petition filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India prays for the following reliefs :- 1. “That, the condition No.11(i) read with schedule -I of the impugned advertisement Annexure P-1 may kindly be held to be illegal and the same be quashed. 2. The respondents be further directed to permit the petitioners to participate in the aforesaid recruitment treating them under age limit. 3. The cost of the petition be awarded to the petitioner. 4. Any other order or directions deemed fit in the circumstances of the case be issued in favour of the petitioners.” 2. The principal challenge of the petitioner to the advertisement (P-1) dated 19.2.2016 published in respect of large number of vacancies including that of Assistant Professor is challenged on the ground that the upper age limit of 45 years as per the advertisement fixed for filling up the vacancies of Assistant Professor is unreasonable, arbitrary and thus deserves to be strucked down. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, the petitioners have passed the State Level Eligibility Test on different dates and are fully eligible to be appointed as an Assistant Professor under the impugned advertisement but have been debarred on account of being above the maximum age of 45 years. 4. Learned senior counsel Shri Jain on advance notice after“Bhaskar Sharma and another. v. State of M.P and others seeking instructions from the MPPSC relied upon the Madhya Pradesh Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1990. 5. Shri Jain submits that rule 8 prescribes for the minimum eligibility for induction of direct recruitment. Schedule 3 appended to the said rules prescribes for a minimum and maximum age for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor as 21 years and 31 years respectively. It is further submitted by him that rule 8 further provides for some relaxation in the maximum age which are enumerated in various clauses of rule 8. Learned senior counsel Shri Jain also submits that even after extending the maximum possible relaxation under rule 8, the candidate should not be more than 45 years of age. 6. Perusal of the advertisement reveals that similar maximum age of 45 years has been fixed for candidates after extending all the prescribed relaxation. 7. Learned senior counsel Shri Jain also submits that even after extending the maximum possible relaxation under rule 8, the candidate should not be more than 45 years of age. 6. Perusal of the advertisement reveals that similar maximum age of 45 years has been fixed for candidates after extending all the prescribed relaxation. 7. In view of the above, the maximum age prescribed by the advertisement in accordance with the statutory Rules of 1990. 8. This petition does not assail the statutory rule prescribing for maximum age. 9. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recruitment process for filling up vacancies of the post of Assistant Professor has been initiated by the PSC after nearly 24 years since the last recruitment was held sometime in 1990. 10. Perusal of the pleadings contained in the writ petition, it is amply clear that the ground of clubbing of vacancies has not been taken by the petitioner and the nature of pleadings contained in the petition indicate that there was no such intention. The intention appears to be to assail the maximum age limit and no further. 11. In view of the above, this Court does not deem it appropriate to interfere in the present petition which is accordingly dismissed with liberty to petitioners to come again by raising grounds which have not been raised herein. No cost.