Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 522 (ALL)

Shivam Singh (Minor) v. State of U. P.

2016-02-12

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, YASHWANT VARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT By these proceedings, the petitioner Shivam Singh who is a minor (being represented by his father) challenges the provisions of Rule 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015 to the extent to which a minimum age of recruitment of 18 years has been fixed for recruitment. Rule 10 is in the following terms: "10. For direct recruitment to the post of constable it is necessary that male candidate must have attained the age of 18 years and must not have attained the age of 22 years and female candidate must have attained the age of 18 years and must not have attained the age of 25 years on the first day of July of the calendar year in which vacancies for direct recruitment are advertised: Provided that the upper age limit in the case of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and such other categories may be greater by such number of years as may be specified in the Act and Government Orders applicable at the time of the notification of the vacancies by the Board." 2. The expression 'year of recruitment' has been defined in Rule 3(p) to mean a period of twelve months commencing on the first day of July of a calendar year. The submission is that there is no rationale for fixing the minimum age of 18 years particularly with reference to the first day of July of the calendar year in which the vacancies for direct recruitment arise. 3. Learned counsel submits that under Rule 14, the appointing authority has to determine and intimate the number of vacancies to be filled during the course of the year of recruitment. Moreover, it has been submitted that the Rules came into force from the date of publication in the Gazette [having due regard to the provisions of Rule 1(2)]. The Rules were published on 2 December 2015 and hence it was urged that the date which is prescribed as the cut off date should have been a date subsequent thereto. 4. Now, as a matter of principle, there could be nothing arbitrary in the State fixing a minimum age for recruitment. We are not making any finding in regard to the fixation of the maximum age which does not fall for determination in this case. 4. Now, as a matter of principle, there could be nothing arbitrary in the State fixing a minimum age for recruitment. We are not making any finding in regard to the fixation of the maximum age which does not fall for determination in this case. Obviously, 18 is a reasonable requirement which meets the norms of fairness embodied in Article 14 of the Constitution. Obviously, a person who is a minor cannot be recruited to the service of the State much less a uniformed service. Rule 14 requires that the appointing authority has to intimate to the Head of the Department the number of vacancies which are to be filled during the course of the year of recruitment. The year of recruitment is defined in Rule 3(p) to mean a period of twelve months commencing on the first day of July of a calendar year. Hence, the cut off date in Rule 10 which is the first day of July of the calendar year in which vacancies for direct recruitment are advertised is directly linked to the definition of the expression 'year of recruitment' in Rule 3(p). There is no merit in the contention that this date should be only a date which falls prospectively after the date of notification of the Rules. Once first of July of the calendar year in which vacancies for direct recruitment are advertised is prescribed under Rule 10, the date has to be uniformly applied. 5. For these reasons, we see no merit in the constitutional challenge. No other point has been raised. The petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.