IN THB HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISCrARH : BILASPUR WritPfctition(S)_No^6818 o£2007 Petitioner Pranaw Kumar Garg, aged about 34 yeara, S/o Shri R. K. Qarg, House No. 19, Gteetaajali City, Behiad Sarkaada Thana, Bilaspur (CG) Versus Respondent Soutti Eastera Coalfields Limited, ttuough its CIiau-caan-cum-Managing Director, Seepat Road, Bilaspur (CG) WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OP THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Slui Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Gaiy Mukhopadhyaya, Advocate for the petitioner. Dr. N. K. Shirida, Senior Advocate with Ms Ritu Mishra, Advocate for the respondent. ORDBR (Passed on fhis 15& Day ofApril, 2009) Learaed counsel appeanng for tfae pctitioner subinits that the petitioner mteialia challenges the fixation ofupper aye liinit for Becruitment, in respcct of non-cxecutivc eiaptoyees in Coal India Limited and its Subsidjarics. The contentioa ofleamed counsel is tfaat the Mining Acts aad Rcgulatioxis do not paovide for upper age limit iu respect ofappointment ia Coal India aad its Subsidiaries. However, the respondents-authonties by Cireular dated 3.11.1999 (Anncxure R/l) has prescribed fhe inaximiuu age timit for recruitment yi respect of noa-exccutive cmployees in CIL & its subsidiaries i.e. for gcneral candidates 30 years, for OBC 33 years and for SC/St 35 years. Pursuant to the Circular dt 3.11.1999 enaptoynaeat noticc (Aitnexurc P/1) was issued, wtuch is under challenge in this petition. ay ^ VL 5. 6. Dr. N. K. Shulda, leamed senior coiuisel ^)pearing for the respondente subnuts fhat fhe decision was taken long back in Noveiaber, 1999, till date fhe same was not questioaed, evcn otherwisc, fhe circular is not in violation of auy Act, Rutes or Constitutional provisions. Haviug heard leamed counsel appearing fqr fhe j»rdes aad having perused the docuinents appended thereto, it is evident that the petitioner has falled to esteblish that the poUcy dccision for fixing xnaxnaiun. age liinit for recniittucnt is ia arbitrary exeroise of powers, there is aay discrmuaatmn, uureasoiiableness or violation of coastitutional pxovteions.In absence offhat, nojudicial review offhe policy decision Mes. The poU.cy decision of fhc respondents caiinot be qiaestioned luitU and unJess it is estabUshed that there 1s ariaiteaxiness, dMcnmination aad imicasoiiableness or vtolatuai of constitutional provteions. The petiticaicr has failed to establish any of such grouuds. In view of thc foregoing, the petition M djsaussed. No oider asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Jadge Tbakar