RUPENDRA KUMAR BHATT Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on the question of admission.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that fixing of upper age limit as 28 years is arbitrary and unreasonable. It is further submitted that there is no nexus between fixing of upper age limit of 28 years with the object sought to be achieved. It is also urged that in other Departments of State Government like Transport, Excise, Jail and Home Guards, where the employees also perform the duties of Police, the upper age limit has been fixed as 35 years. Therefore, there is no justification to fix the upper age limit as 28 years. It is fairly submitted that petitioner had appeared in the examination, however, his candidature was rejected on the ground that he does not meet the eligibility criteria with regard to upper age limit.

(3.) I have considered the respective submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties. Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees to every citizen the right to equality before the law. It does not forbid different treatment of unequals. In Dr. Ami Lal Bhat Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, 1997 6 SCC 614, it has been held that 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. Similar view has been taken in Government of Andhra Pradesh and others Vs. N. Subbarayudu and others, 2008 14 SCC 702, wherein it has been held that the Court must not declare the choice of the employer to fix the cut-off date to be arbitrary and violative of Art. 14 unless the said cut-off date leads some blatantly capricious or outrageous result.