IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W.J.C. No. 596 of 2011 DR.MANINDRA KISHORE, aged about 42 years, S/o Late Dr. Nathuni Singh, resident of village- Dhinka, P.S- Krishnabrahm, Dist- Buxar -----------Petitioner 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Principal Secretary, Medical Education, Department of Health, Govt of Bihar, Patna. 3. Bihar Public Service commission, Bailey Road, Patna Through its Secretary. 4. The Additional Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, Bailey Road, Patna. -----------Respondents For the Petitioner--- Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh For the State—AC to AAG 13 For the B.P.S.C—Mr. P.N.Shahi& Mr. Sanjay Pandey 3. 01.04.2011 Petitioner is one of the candidates was an applicant in response to the advertisement issued by the B.P.S.C for filling up the post of doctors under various streams. Petitioner was a claimant under the category of Anesthetics. At the time of advertisement one of the clauses on age indicates that for general category, it is fixed at 37 years and for other reserved categories to which the petitioner belongs as 40 years. Petitioner was successful in the initial exercise and was even called for interview but thereafter he was ousted on the ground that he is over age and falls foul of the condition which was fixed in the advertisement. Learned senior counsel representing the petitioner submits that there would have been no grievance if this yardstick was applied across the board and uniformally to one and all but it has not been done. Some litigations, travelled to the High Court where a plea was taken that since the advertisement had 2 been issued after a very long time and a-lot of eligible candidates have been patiently waiting for a break through in life therefore, the respondents ought to consider enhancing the age of recruitment in a suitable manner. The Principal Secretary Department of health Government of Bihar was given a direction to take a decision. Petitioner filed supplementary affidavit and has brought a notification dated 6th October 2009 by virtue of which the Deputy Secretary Government of Bihar, Department of Health has given the benefit of extended age of 45 years to certain persons whose name appears in the said notification. Learned counsel therefore, submits that if the age is enhanced it should be enhanced across the board and not on a selective basis because every person who is a claimant to a public office must be treated similarly Selective concessions would fall foul of Articles 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. It is in this back ground that the Principal Secretary Health was directed to file a counter affidavit and explain the circumstances under which Annexure 5 was notified. Direction in this regard was given on 27th of January 2011, but learned counsel for the State informs the Court that the input which has been given to him does not help him in building up a proper defence or a justification for such a decision. He wants some more time which this Court may not be willing to grant Stand of the B.P.S.C is that the rejection of petitioner’s candidature has been made because of the age limit and they have no discretion 3 in the matter. The Court fails to under stand as to why benefits can accrue to some and not to others who were otherwise applicants and are eligible for such appointments, except for the age coming in their way. If Annexure 5, the notification is taken into consideration then the Court does come to an opinion that there is no impediment in the way of the State enhancing the age for appointment. If they could do it for some they must do it for all on else their act would fall foul of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has made out a case for a direction upon respondents specially respondent no.2 the Principal Secretary that he is bound to notify in generality, enhancing the age for appointment for the post in question which shall be 45 years. Enhancement must be across the board and no notifications are going to be issued in installments in favour of selected handful of people. The exercise must be carried out within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order. The appointments if not made so far shall remain in abeyance and no person who comes within the ambit of the enhanced age would be ousted from consideration if he is otherwise successful and if he fulfills the rest of the criteria laid down in terms of the advertisement. The writ is allowed. Namita ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)