Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 23 (MP)

Vidya Bhushan Shukla v. State of M. P.

2017-01-04

ROHIT ARYA

body2017
ORDER 1. Petitioners have approached this Court taking exception to clause of age relaxation in Clause 5 of the advertisement (Annexure P-1) issued by Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited (hereinafter referred to as the “MPMKVVCL”) for appointment to the post of Manager (HR) (Regular) on the premise that earlier advertisements issued by the same company had extended the age relaxation to such of the candidates who have worked in other company i.e. MPSEB or successor companies, whereas in the instant case now the relaxation is limited to the different categories of candidates if they have worked on contract basis in the same company i.e. MPMKVVCL. Said relaxation is of five years, which has been extended in upper age limit in respective category for candidates who have worked on contract basis in MPMKVVCL only having relevant experience which shall be allowed commensurate with experience (for completed months) obtained after the minimum qualification acquired by the candidate as on 1.1.2017 subject to maximum five years. 2. The facts relevant for disposal of this petition are to the effect that MPMKVVCL is a body corporate registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, which can sue or can be sued in its own name. By way of advertisement dated 9.12.2016, for the recruitment of Accounts Officer (Regular) and Manager (HR) (Regular) Batch 2016-17, applications have been invited from amongst the eligible candidates. The petitioners are the aspiring candidates working in Madhya Pradesh Pashchim Kshetra Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited. As per the advertisement, the maximum age limit is 30 years. Relaxation of age limit for the post of Manager (HR) (Regular) as provided under Clause 5 (b) is now restricted to such candidates, who have worked on contract basis in the company only having relevant experience. For ready reference, Clause 5 (b) is reproduced below :- “(b) Relaxation in upper age limit in respective category for candidates who have worked on contract basis in MPMKVVL only, having relevant experience shall be allowed commensurate with experience (for completed months) obtained after the minimum qualification acquired by the candidate as on 1.1.2017 subject to a maximum of five years. This relaxation shall be over and above that provided in Clause 5(a) above for that category of candidates.” 3. The petitioners have crossed the age limit. 4. This relaxation shall be over and above that provided in Clause 5(a) above for that category of candidates.” 3. The petitioners have crossed the age limit. 4. Learned senior counsel contends that there is no reason or justification for the respondent MPMKVVCL to restrict the extension of benefit of age relaxation only amongst the candidates who have worked and gained experience in MPMKVVCL. Instead, the benefit of relaxation of age limit should have also been extended to such candidates, who have gained experience in other Vidyut Vitaran Company Limited, as was available in the advertisement issued on 1.2.2016 (Annexure P-3) and on 19.10.2015 (Annexure P-4). There is no reason or justification for such discrimination as all such companies are successors of the erstwhile M.P. Electricity Board. If the petitioners are extended the benefit of age relaxation, they would be qualified for consideration of their candidature for the post of Manager (HR) (Regular). Learned senior counsel contends that due to denial of benefit of age relaxation, petitioners have been denied the equality before law and equal protection of law violating the fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. Heard. 6. Before adverting to the contentions advanced, it is expedient to reiterate the equality clause enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which has two facets; namely (i) equality before law and (ii) equal protection of law, i.e. equal treatment to persons equally situated and unequals cannot be treated equally. This in turn suggest that there should be reasonable classification and the classification must be based on intelligible differentia i.e. it must have nexus with the object sought to be achieved. 7. Besides, prescription and regulation of qualification is within the exclusive domain of the employer. Of course, the same is required to be in conformity with the concept of equality as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and as understood in the context of classification referred above. Undisputedly, MPMKVVCL, an independent distribution company, has its own working force with conforming to its requirement with different cadres of posts. Manager (HR) (Regular) is one of such posts. The eligibility of the candidates have been prescribed in the advertisement. Undisputedly, MPMKVVCL, an independent distribution company, has its own working force with conforming to its requirement with different cadres of posts. Manager (HR) (Regular) is one of such posts. The eligibility of the candidates have been prescribed in the advertisement. The age limit of the candidates is also prescribed for the post of Manager (HR) (Regular) i.e. minimum age is 21 years and maximum age is 30 years as on 1.1.2017. No exception to the prescription of the age, as one of the eligibility condition, can be taken. Petitioners including such candidates fulfilling eligibility are entitled to apply for the post. Clause of age relaxation in fact is an exception to the conditions of eligibility. No complaint to relaxation of condition of appointment can be made by a candidate, who otherwise does not fulfil the eligibility conditions, as firstly; the extension of relaxation is in the exclusive domain of the employer and secondly; the relaxation for class of persons working with the company has nexus with the object of appointment of Manager (HR) (Regular) for this company, no exception thereto can be taken, as the post sought to be filled is that of a Manager. If a person has gained work experience working in the same company, in the opinion of this Court, acknowledgment of such experience by the employer and extension of corresponding benefit in age relaxation does conform to twin requirement of Article 14. Such person can always be put in a Class other than the outsider candidates in the matter of age relaxation. As such, the candidates having experience in the same company can be better suited to perform the duties of Manager in the company. As such aforesaid classification has nexus with the object of appointment on the post of Manager (HR) (Regular) in such establishment. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, no complaint for violation of fundamental rights enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, can be made at the instance of the petitioners and outsider candidates. 8. So far as the contention with reference to previous two advertisements is concerned, suffice it to say that those two advertisements were not for the post of Manager (HR) (Regular), instead, those were for different posts and therefore no parity in that behalf can be claimed. 8. So far as the contention with reference to previous two advertisements is concerned, suffice it to say that those two advertisements were not for the post of Manager (HR) (Regular), instead, those were for different posts and therefore no parity in that behalf can be claimed. In any case, as discussed above, prescription and regulation of qualification and eligibility conditions are within the exclusive domain of the employer and therefore for this reason as well no claim of parity can be claimed to assail the relaxation clause in the instant advertisement. 9. Consequently, writ petition sans merit and is hereby dismissed.