Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 48 (JHR)

Prakash Rai v. State of Jharkhand

2016-01-06

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2016
Order : Heard counsel for the parties. 2. All these petitioners belong to SC or ST category who were engaged pursuant to the advertisement issued in 2008 as Multipurpose Worker (Male) on contractual basis in the State Malaria Control Committee. The engagement was initially for a period of one year, but got renewed annually up to 2014 when the engagement ended on 30.09.2014. The Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand have now decided to undertake the recruitment to newly created 2150 posts of Multipurpose Worker (Male) on contractual basis under the advertisement no. 13/2015 issued on 23.12.2015 which lays down the eligibility criteria as having qualification of intermediate /10+2 in Science subject with minimum 45% marks; candidates should also have the work experience of one year under the Health Department, Government of Jharkhand as Multipurpose Worker (Male); the age limit prescribed for recruitment is from 18 years to 45 years. About 559 and 215 posts have been notified in the scheduled tribe/scheduled caste category. 3. Petitioners are aggrieved by fixation of upper age limit and seek relaxation beyond 45 years counting their period of contractual engagement since 2008 till it came to an end in September 2014. 4. Grounds urged on the part of the petitioners are that the entire recruitment exercise has been undertaken after much deliberation between the Central Government and State Government. As per the Central Government Letter dated 23.06.2014, contractual period of Multipurpose Worker (Male) in Jharkhand State was extended up to 30.09.2014 and would not be extended any further. It was indicated therein that the State Government should create requisite number of posts of MPW(M) if such services are required beyond 30.09.2014 and fill them on regular basis. This has ultimately lead to creation of advertised posts totaling 2150 of MPW(M) also being persuaded by the representation of such Multipurpose Workers (Male) like the petitioners who have been working since 2008 on contractual basis. While in the earlier exercise, age limit prescribed was 35 years for general category, 37 years for most backward category and 40 years for scheduled tribe and scheduled caste category, in the instant exercise, without any classification, upper age limit of 45 years have been prescribed for all categories. While in the earlier exercise, age limit prescribed was 35 years for general category, 37 years for most backward category and 40 years for scheduled tribe and scheduled caste category, in the instant exercise, without any classification, upper age limit of 45 years have been prescribed for all categories. In effect, the general category candidate got age relaxation of 10 years while the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe category candidate got only relaxation of 5 years, which is arbitrary. Petitioners therefore have sought relaxation in upper age limit and admissibility to participate in the recruitment exercise, otherwise they would suffer having worked under the respondent department on contractual basis for over 6-7 years. 5. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer at the outset. It is urged on their behalf that the impugned condition in the advertisement in question lays down upper age limit much beyond what has been prescribed in normal circumstances by the State Government in any such recruitment exercise i.e. 35 yeas for the general category, 37 years for most backward category and 40 years for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe category. It is submitted that the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates who had already 05 years of enhanced age limit, have got further 05 years of relaxation in the recruitment exercise, it cannot be termed as arbitrary. Many candidates in the SC/ST category would be benefited by the enhanced upper age limit. However, one or the other candidates like the petitioners who fall on the other side of the cut-off age i.e. 45 years, would always be adversely affected, which cannot be a ground to interfere in the fixation of upper age limit 6. I have considered the submissions of the parties in the light of the relevant material facts pleaded. As is obvious from the pleadings on record, under the respondent Government, a definite age limit has been prescribed in the recruitment exercise i.e. 35 years for general category, 37 years for most backward category and 40 years for scheduled case and scheduled tribe category. Petitioners got a chance of engagement on contractual basis in the exercise held in 2008 under the same criteria of upper age limit prescribed under the respondent Department. One or the other such candidate would have obviously been age barred after completion of 40 years as per such uniform criteria followed under the State Government. Petitioners got a chance of engagement on contractual basis in the exercise held in 2008 under the same criteria of upper age limit prescribed under the respondent Department. One or the other such candidate would have obviously been age barred after completion of 40 years as per such uniform criteria followed under the State Government. It is only on consideration of requirement of recruitment to the post of Multipurpose Worker (Male) in large number and to take into account the services rendered by the contractually engaged Multipurpose Workers (Male) over a length of time that the State Government has prescribed the enhanced upper age limit of 45 years applicable to all categories. Candidates belonging to the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe would also get the benefit of 05 years of upper age relaxation in the normal upper age limit of 40 years. Many such candidates belonging to the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe would also be the beneficiary of such enhanced upper age limit. One or the other candidate belonging to this category who have crossed the age of 45 years, would obviously be adversely affected even by such enhanced age limit. However, hardship to one or the other candidate can alone be not a ground to render the fixation of upper age limit in such recruitment exercise as arbitrary and unreasonable. It is within the domain of policy decision of the Executive to lay down age criteria and fix cut-off dates or cut-off age in any such recruitment exercise. It is also within the policy domain of the Executive to allow relaxation in upper age limit in any of the categories. 7. In the instant case, if the State has chosen to grant 05 years relaxation even to the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe category, it cannot be said to be arbitrary on the grounds that any other candidate have got relaxation in upper age limit more than them. In fact, relaxation in upper age limit has been made applicable to all categories having different limits of upper age from the normal criteria prescribed. 8. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of H.P. vs. Suresh Kumar Verma and another [ (1996) 7 SCC 562 ]. In fact, relaxation in upper age limit has been made applicable to all categories having different limits of upper age from the normal criteria prescribed. 8. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of H.P. vs. Suresh Kumar Verma and another [ (1996) 7 SCC 562 ]. It is obvious that the State Government in the instant exercise has also allowed necessary relaxation in age in the present exercise of recruitment to the post of Multipurpose Worker (Male) keeping into account the period of service rendered on such contractual basis by such workers however, up to a limit of 45 years which is in line with the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Otherwise, upper age limit prescribed under the State Government, as already referred to herein above, is different i.e. 35, 37 and 40 years in respective categories. 9. In such circumstances, this Court is not satisfied that fixation of upper age limit suffers from any arbitrariness or unreasonableness requiring interference by this Court. Accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed.