PREM RANJAN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS in these writ applications have commonly challenged the Advertisement No. 01 of 2008 (Annexure -2), issued by the Respondent No. 5, taking objection to the maximum age limit of 24 years fixed as one of the eligibility criterias for recruitment of candidates to the post of the Sub -Inspectors of the Police in the Jharkhand Police Service. The main questions raised for determination are:

(2.) THE common contention of the petitioners in these writ applications is that the last examination for selection to the post of Sub -Inspector when the process of recruitment was taken up by the Respondents -State in the State's Police Service was held in the year 1994. After the bifurcation of the erstwhile State of Bihar when the State of Jharkhand came into existence with effect from 15.11.2000, the State of Jharkhand had not taken any initiative to fill up the vacancies whatsoever to the post of Sub -Inspectors and equivalent posts. The State of Jharkhand adopted the Bihar Police Manual with certain amendments vide Memo No. 3300 dated 12.11.2001 and in one of the modified clauses, the upper age limit for the General Category candidates in the Police Service has been fixed from 19 years to 35 years. Pursuant to the requisition of the State Government, the Jharkhand Public Service Commission had issued a Notification No. 11 of 2007 by which their Civil Services Examination was conducted by the J.P.S.C. for the appointment in the Jharkhand Police Service and in the corresponding advertisement issued by the J.P.S.C., the upper age limit has been fixed as 35 years for the General Category Candidates. In spite of the above, the impugned advertisement has now fixed the upper age limit for the General Category candidates as 24 years as on 01.01.2008 besides the other requisite eligibility criteria of being a Graduate from any recognised university or the equivalent.

(3.) MR . Manish Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners argues that the State of Jharkhand had adopted the Bihar Police Manual and certain amendments were carried out vide Memo No. 3300 dated 12.11.2001 in Rule 658 of the Manual. The modification carried out vide the amendment, had declared that the upper age limit for the General Category candidates for appointment be fixed at 35 years. Pursuant to the requisition of the State Government, the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi had issued a Notification No. 11 of 2007 by which the third Civil Services Examination was conducted for appointment of candidates in the Jharkhand Police Service. The Notification also maintained the upper age limit for the General Category candidates as 35 years. Learned Counsel submits further that in spite of the above upper age limit fixed at 35 years for General Category candidates in the Police Manual, the Respondent No. 5 has issued the impugned Advertisement for appointment to the post of Sub -Inspector in the State Police Service fixing the maximum upper age limit as 24 years as on 01.01.2008 and by a supplementary advertisement increasing the age limit to 25 years as on 01.01.2009. Learned Counsel argues that the process for selection of candidates to the post of Sub -Inspectors is now being sought to be taken for the first time after creation of the State of Jharkhand and after more than 13 years from the date of last selection tests. Learned Counsel argues that by accumulating the vacancies for more than 5 years since after the creation of the State of Jharkhand and proceeding to fill up the accumulated vacancies now by reducing the upper age limit for the General Category candidates is an act, totally arbitrary and discriminatory on the part of the Respondent -State. Learned Counsel argues further that by fixing the eligibility criteria of minimum educational qualification of Graduate, the age at which a majority of candidates appear at the Matriculation Examination is around 16 years and adding five more years counted to complete Graduation, a candidate normally acquires the Graduate Degree in between the age of 21/22 years. The petitioner and such other candidates like him, had acquired the Graduate Degree in year 2002 and according to the eligibility criteria, had become eligible for appointment on the post of Sub -Inspector. The State Government by its inaction has failed to fill up the vacancies eversince the year 2000 when the State of Jharkhand came into existence and has now for the first time after accumulating the vacancies, has decided to fill up the vacancies but by fixing the upper age limit at 25 years, the petitioner and several other candidates like him, have been debarred from their appearance at the Selection Test on the ground of exceeding the maximum age limit. Referring in this context to the judgments of the Supreme Court in A.I.R. 1994 SC 736 and to the judgment of the Patna High Court in 2000 (3) P.L.J.R. 231, learned Counsel argues that the aforesaid judgments declare that no amendment can be brought about by administrative action to change the service conditions and ignoring the service conditions as laid down in the State Policy. Referring to the modification in Rule 658 of the State Police Manual by way of amendment carried out on 12.11.2001, whereby the upper age limit for the General Category candidates for appointment in the post in the Jharkhand Police Service was declared as 35 years, learned Counsel explains that the aforesaid modification declares the State Policy. This is also reflected in the Advertisement issued by the J.P.S.C, vide Advertisement No. 11 of 2007 for recruitment of candidates in the Jharkhand Police Service in which, the upper age limit has been fixed at 35 years for the General category candidates. Learned Counsel argues that the policy as declared by the State Government could not have been altered by the Respondent No. 3 by reducing the upper age limit to 25 years. Learned Counsel argues further that Articles 14, 12 and 48A of the Constitution of India must be applied both in relation to Executive Action as also in relation to a legislation and therefore, it is within the scope of the powers of this Court to make a judicial review of the administrative action of the Respondent -State Government.