M A BOSE Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a Writ of declaration declaring that the eligibility criteria fixed in Clause 15 (1) of the prospectus for the academic year 2008-2009 to admission to the three year higher specialty course in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges issued by the third respondent is illegal, unlawful, unreasonable, arbitrary and hence null and void and consequentially direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's candidature for Mch decree on merits and without reference to petitioner's age in accordance with law.

(2.) MR. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Doctor, aged 64 years, completed M.S. Degree in General Surgery in the year 1982 and practising in Virudhunagar District; that he applied for a seat in Mch degree for Neurosurgery/Plastic Survery in the year 2007 and wrote the entrance examination; that in that discipline, only four seats were available out of which two seats were reserved for candidates from government service and two seats for candidates from private practice, but the petitioner was ranked in serial No.3 among private candidates, hence, he could not secure the admission; that the third respondent issued prospectus relating to admission to three year higher speciality course in Tamil Nadu Medical Colleges for 2008-2009 by surprisingly fixing maximum age limit of 50 years as on 30.06.2008, which is evident in clause 15 (1) of the said prospectus; that in view of the said condition, the petitioner was disentitled to apply, which is unfair, unlawful, illegal and the same was suddenly introduced only in the academic year 2008-2009, hence, the present writ petition has been filed for declaration to declare that the eligibility criteria fixed in Clause 15 (1) of the prospectus for the academic year 2008-2009 is null and void and consequentially direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's candidature for Mch decree on merits.

(3.) THIS contention, in our view, is not sustainable. In the first place the fixing of a cut-off date for determining the maximum or minimum age prescribed for a post is not, per se, arbitrary. Basically, the fixing of a cut-off date for determining the maximum or minimum age required for a post, is in the discretion of the rule-making authority or the employer as the case may be. One must accept that such a cut-off date cannot be fixed with any mathematical precision and in such a manner as would avoid hardship in all conceivable cases. As soon as a cut-off date is fixed there will be some persons who fall on the right side of the cut-off date and some persons who will fall on the wrong side of the cut-off date. That cannot make the cut-off date, per se, arbitrary unless the cut-off date is so wide off the mark as to make it wholly unreasonable. THIS view was expressed by this Court in Union of India v. Parameswaran Match Works and has been reiterated in subsequent cases. In the case of A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra the relevant service rule stipulated that the candidate should not have completed the age of 26 years on the 1st day of July of the year in which the selection is made. Such a cut-off date was challenged. THIS Court considered the various steps required in the process of selection and said, "When such are the different steps in the process of selection the minimum or maximum age of suitability of a candidate for appointment cannot be allowed to depend upon any fluctuating or uncertain date. If the final stage of selection is delayed and more often it happens for various reasons, the candidates who are eligible on the date of application may find themselves eliminated at the final stage for no fault of theirs. The date to attain the minimum or maximum age must, therefore, be specific and determinate as on a particular date for candidates to apply and for the recruiting agency to scrutinise the applications". THIS Court, therefore, held that in order to avoid uncertainty in respect of minimum or maximum age of a candidate, which may arise if such an age is linked to the process of selection which may take an uncertain time, it is desirable that such a cut-off date should be with reference to a fixed date. Therefore, fixing an independent cut-off date, far from being arbitrary, makes for certainty in determining the maximum age. 5. In the absence of any legal or constitutional infirmity, the Court will not substitute its judgment for that of academicians as if sitting in appeal. The Court can interfere if there is no principle according to which the State has fixed the age limit. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that fixation of age limit is discrimination and unreasonableness. The reasonableness has to be determined with reference to the circumstances. Article 14 only needs that persons similarly circumstanced should be treated alike, both in privileges conferred and liability imposed. The principle of equality does not mean that every law must have universal application for all persons who are not by nature, attainment or circumstances in the same position, as the varying needs of different classes of persons often require separate treatment. Age form a rational basis in relation to the object of a particular subjects legislation, hence, fixing 50 years as maximum age as on 30.06.2008 by the respondents is perfectly valid.