JAGDEEP MALIK Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing the advertisement dated 2.11.2011 (Annexure P-7) vide which the upper age limit prescribed for a person to be eligible for appointment to the post of Sub Divisional Officer H.V.S.,Class -I in Animal Husbandry and Dairying Department, Haryana is prescribed as 45 years, which according to the petitioners, should be 50 years for in-service candidates.

(2.) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that although the statutory rules provide for the upper age limit to be 45 years but since the year 1995 whenever the posts have been advertised i.e. (Annexures P-3 to P-5 and P-6 A), relaxation has always been granted to the in-service candidates by invoking Rule 19 of the Haryana Veterinary (Group A) Service Rules, 1995 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' ). His contention is that once relaxation with regard to the age from 45 years to 50 years has been granted to in-service officers which he contends is apparent from the letter dated 14.7.1995 (Annexure P-1), invoking of the said Rule on every occasion for relaxation of the upper age limit is not required and the petitioner is also entitled to relaxation of age from 45 to 50 years. He, on this basis, contends that the advertisement impugned is, therefore, required to be made in such a manner that it is in consonance with the initial decision of the Government taken for relaxing the upper age limit of the in-service candidates. His further contention is that after invoking of the powers under Rule 19 in the year 1995, no such decision has been taken by the Government thereafter for relaxing the upper age limit and that continued for all times to come and had been consistently followed by the Department. The consistent stand of the respondent-Department has been that the post in question requires highly specialised and skilled qualifications to be possessed by the candidates for which the upper age limit should be 50 years, as is apparent from the advertisement referred to above for which upper age limit has been taken as 50 years in the past which this time has not been provided by the Haryana Public Service Commission while issuing the advertisement. He further contends that this time also, the Government has sent the requisition to the Haryana Public Service Commission by incorporating the condition of 50 years as the upper age limit and, therefore, the impugned advertisement has wrongly been issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission. At this stage, counsel clarifies that earlier the requisition was sent by prescribing 50 years as the upper age limit which was objected to by the Haryana Public Service Commission as the same was not in consonance with the Statutory Rules which objection has been accepted by the Government and a fresh requisition sent with upper age limit of 45 years for in-service candidates as well. Accordingly, he states that the impugned advertisement cannot sustain.

(3.) I have heard counsel for the petitioners and gone through the records of the case.