UPENDRA KUMAR SINGH Vs. SATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The issue relates to the appointment of a Sub -Inspector of Police.

(2.) The advertisement stipulated the minimum age as 20 years and the maximum age as 35 years as on 1.1.2005. The petitioner is admittedly overage, being approximately 37 years of age at the relevant date. He seeks the relief of relaxation of age by three years. The grounds urged are; that the selection examination is not being held regularly because of which he lost the opportunity to compete when he was of the requisite age, that earlier the Rules provided for relaxation in age and that he was a Law Graduate. He strenuously relied upon a Bench decision of thls Court in CWJC No. 14196 of 2004 dated 23.11.2004 issuing a mandamus for relaxation of age of a candidate, who was a Law Graduate, on the aforesaid ground and directing the application to be accepted. It was lastly urged thi 't the petitioner has been allowed to compete in the physical test successft lly and, therefore, there is no justification for now to debar him from the written examination.

(3.) THE appointment relates to the Police Department. To eommence with the nature of duties expected from a person, who qualifies in the Police service are vastly different from that which may be required by an ordinary civilian. The physical competency of an aspirant for a uniform disciplined force, in today 'schanging multi dimensional environment where those tailing foul of the law are of great importance and need no emphasis. Quite naturally it is for the employer to decide the age of physical competency to consider persons for appointment for this uniform disciplined force keeping in mind the nature and rigours of the work. The fact that the petitioner may have maintained good health is an entirely a different matter. That shall not vest in him a right to demand a mandamus for relaxation of age. Moreover, in the present advertisement, there is no provision for relaxation of the conditions of the advertisement. To read something into the advertisement, which is not there, to incorporate the same in the advertisement and to issue a mandamus for compliance of the same shall clearly be beyond the powers of the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Who is suitable or not suitable is for the employer to decide and not for this Court to decide. This Court has serious reservations if the orders for relaxation of the conditions of the advertisement can be issued by it in favour of an individual more particularly in absence of such relaxation clause.