IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 17.6.2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR W.P.No.39150 of 2006 S.Sundaravadivel ... Petitioner vs. 1.The State of Tamilnadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Home (Police-III) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2.The Chairman Tamilnadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, Indira Nagar, Chennai-20. 3.The Director General of Police, Admiralty House, Chennai-2. ... Respondents This petition came to be numbered by transfer of O.A.No.304 of 1999 on the file of the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the Ist respondent in G.O.Ms.No.875, Home (Police-III) Department dated 8.7.1998 and quash the same in so far as the prescription of age of 45 years for the departmental candidates under the 20% open quota for selection to the post of the Sub-Inspector of Police. For Petitioner ... Mr.K.Venkatramani Senior Counsel For Respondents ... Mrs.Shanmugavalli Sekar, Government Advocate ORDER The petitioner has challenged G.O.Ms.No.875, Home (Police-III) Department dated 8.7.1998, in so far as the prescription of maximum age of 45 years, for departmental candidates, under 20% open quota for selection to the post of the Sub-Inspector of Police. 2.The short facts are as follows: The petitioner has joined Railway Police Force on 11.11.1976, as Police Constable. He is a post graduate degree holder. He was promoted as Grade-I Police Constable in the year 1994. He has received 43 rewards and also the Chief Minister's Gold Medal for meritorious service. Following the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Madras made in O.A.No.1368 of 1994 dated 18.1.1995, the first respondent issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.1954, Home (Police-III) Department dated 13.7.1995 for Special recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police from Police Constables/Head Constables, against 20% vacancies. As per the Government order, the following conditions have to be satisfied: a) The candidate must be a graduate; b) He must have completed 5 years of service; c) He must have a clean record of service without any punishment. 3.The petitioner has further contended that the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, Chennai was directed to prescribe norms and procedure to be followed in the matter of recruitment, for selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, such as physical measurements, physical efficiency test, written test, viva-voce test etc. Pursuant to the Government Order, selection was conducted in the year 1995. Even though the Government have issued an order in G.O.Ms.No.1954, Home (Police-III) Department dated 13.7.1995, prescribing certain qualifications and norms for direct recruitment under 20% quota among the departmental candidates, no statutory amendment has been made to the service rule under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 4. It is the further case of the petitioner that in the last selection conducted in 1995, no age limit was fixed by the respondents for departmental candidates and therefore number of persons who crossed the age of 45 years, were permitted to participate in the selection. While that be so, the Chairman of the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, Chennai, the second respondent has issued a memorandum dated 18.6.1998, prescribing the maximum age limit of 45 years as on 1.7.1997 for service candidates under 20% quota. Challenging the above said memorandum, fixing the maximum age for direct recruitment for the departmental candidates, the petitioner has filed O.A.No.5633 of 1998 on the file of the Tamil Nadu State Administrative Tribunal. 4.By an order dated 16.7.1998, the Tribunal has directed the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the selection. According to the petitioner, he was successful in the selection. Subsequently the Government have issued orders in G.O.Ms.No.875 Home (Police V) Department dated 6.7.1998 amending the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service to fix the maximum age, height and service applicable to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. The said amendment is given retrospective effect from 13.7.1995. 5.Assailing the same, Mr.K.Venkataramani, learnd senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that G.O.Ms.No.1954, Home Department, dated 13.7.1995 did not prescribe any age limit for departmental candidates to participate under 20% direct recruitment quota. He also submitted that it is not open to the first respondent to amend the rule after a lapse of three years, giving retrospective effect. According to the counsel, the upper age limit for Head Constables to participate in the selection, prior to 1987 was 48 years. Pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.1883, Home (Police-III) dated 5.8.1997, the upper age limit was increased from 45 to 53 with a view to give opportunity to police personal working in the department. Referring to the orders made in O.A.No.1368 of 1994 dated 18.1.1995, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the direction given in the Original Application was with an intention to provide more promotional avenues to the departmental candidates for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and therefore prescribing a maximum age of 45 years for departmental candidates is arbitrary. Learned senior counsel further submitted that due to retrospective operation of the rules the rights accrued to the departmental candidates to participate in the selection against 20% quota for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police has been taken away. For the above reasons he prayed for a direction to quash G.O.Ms.No.875, Home (Police- III) Department dated 8.7.1998 in so far as prescription of maximum age of 45 years for inservice police personnel. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. For the purpose of adjudication it is relevant to extract the government order amending the statutory rules. G.O.Ms.No.875 Home (Police-V) Department dated 6.7.1998 reads as follows: "In exercise of the powers conferred by Sections 8 and 10 of the Tamil Nadu District Police Act,1859 (Central Police Act, XXIV of 1859) and sections 9 and 11 of the Chennai City Police Act, 1888 (Tamil Nadu Act III of 1888) read with proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and of all other powers hereunto enabling, the Governor of Tamil Nadu hereby makes the following amendment to the Special Rules for the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service (Section 34 in Volume-III) of the Tamil Nadu Services Manual, 1970. 2.The Amendment hereby made shall be deemed to have come into force on the 13th July, 1995. AMENDMENT In the said Special Rules. (1) In Rule 3(a), in Annexure I, in the table, under Class I, in column (6) against the entry "Category-2 Sub-Inspectors of Police in Column (1) thereof, the following shall be added, namely:- "Provided further that the contesting candidates against 20% of vacancies of direct recruitment quota. (i) should not have completed 45 years of age as on Ist July, preceding the date of Notification of selection; ii) should have 168 centimetres in height; and iii) must have completed five years of service as on Ist July, preceding the date of Notification of selection." 8. In this context it is worthwhile to extract few judgements of the Supreme Court on the power of the courts to interfere with the domain of the executive in prescribing eligibility such as educational qualifications, age, experience in admission to educational institutions and appointment to service. 9. In Prafulla Chandra vs. Union Territory of Tripura AIR 1963 Tripura 38 para 7, the court held as follows: " This court cannot take the place of appointing authority and in a petition like this, go into the question of suitability of the petitioner in regard to age, qualifications, work and character or say that the appointing authority was either negligent or was guided by ulterior motives in not issuing the declaration." 10. In State of Rajasthan and others -vs- Lata Arun reported in (2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 252, the Supreme Court had a occasion to consider on issue relating to prescribing of minimum educational qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment or for promotion in service. After considering the earlier judgement the court at paragraphs 10 and 13 held as follows: "10. The points involved in the case are twofold: one relating to prescription of minimum educational qualification for admission to the course and the other relating to recognition of the Madhyama Certificate issued by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad as equivalent to or higher than + 2 or Ist year of TDC for the purpose of admission. Both these points relate to matters in the realm of policy decision to be taken by the State Government or the authority vested with power under any statute. It is not for courts to determine whether a particular educational qualification possessed by a candidate should or should not be recognised as equivalent to the prescribed qualification in the case. That is not to say that such matters are not justifiable. In an appropriate case the court can examine whether the policy decision or the administrative order dealing with the matter is based on a fair, rational and reasonable ground; whether the decision has been taken on consideration of relevant aspects of the matter; whether exercise of the power is obtained with mala fide intention; whether the decision serves the purpose of giving proper training to the candidates admitted or it is based on irrelevant and irrational considerations or intended to benefit an individual or a group of candidates. 13.From the ratio of the decision noted above, it is clear that the prescribed eligibility qualification for admission to a course or for recruitment or promotion in service are matters to be considered by the appropriate authority. It is not for courts to decide whether a particular educational qualification should or should not be accepted as equivalent to the qualification prescribed by the authority." 11. In P.U.Joshi and others vs. Accountant General Ahmedabad and others reported in (2003) 2 Supreme Court cases 632 at paragraph 10 of the judgement, the Supreme Court held as follows: "Questions relating to the constitution, pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotions pertain to the field of policy is within the exclusive discretion and jurisdiction of the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the constitution of India and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Government to have a particular method of recruitment of eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substituting its views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competency of the State to change the rules relating to a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/subtraction the qualifications, eligibility criterial and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise, the State by appropriate rules is entitled to amalgamate departments or bifurcate departments into more and constitute different categories of posts or cadres by undertaking further classification, bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the pattern and cadres/categories of service, as may be required from time to time by abolishing the existing cadres/posts and creating new cadres/posts. There is no right in any employee of the State to claim that rules governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposes and except for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challenge the authority of the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relating to even an existing service." 12. It is evident from the pleadings that as per the directions in O.A.No.5633 of 1998 has participated in the powers of Selection, for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, held in 1998. But he has not stated anything about the marks secured by him in the selection. 13. Sections 8 and 9 of the Tamil Nadu Police Act, 1853, (Central Act 1839) read with Article 309 of the Constitution of India, empowers the government to amend the recruitment rules for the post of Sub Inspector of Police. Merely because the government have enhanced the maximum age applicable for the post of Sub- Inspector of Police under certain circumstances, that does not mean that the same age has to be applied for future recruitment also. Right to S. MANIKUMAR, J. vk consider for promotion is subject to satisfying the eligibility criteria fixed by the employer. Prescription of qualification, age experience and other connections of service to be fulfilled, are matters within the domain of the executive. The decision of the government in fixing the maximum age as 45 years, for inservice candidates is not irrational nor the exercise of power can be termed as malafide. There is no unconstitutionality in amending the Special rules applicable to the post of Sub- Inspector of Police. 14. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 17.6.2008 vk Index: Yes To 1.The State of Tamilnadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Home (Police-III) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2.The Chairman Tamilnadu Uniformed Service Recruitment Board, Indira Nagar, Chennai-20. 3.The Director General of Police, Admiralty House, Chennai-2. W.P.No.39150 of 2006