IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No. 16091 of 2010 Date of Decision: September 13, 2010 Miss Rupinder Kaur …Petitioner Versus Punjab Public Service Commission, Patiala …Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: None for the petitioner. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The only question raised in the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is ‘whether clause 2 concerning eligibility condition, given by the Punjab Public Service Commission (for brevity, ‘the Commission’) in its prospectus (P-2), stipulating the date of eligibility to be minimum of 21 years on 1.1.2009, is valid and constitutional’. 2. The facts in brief are that the Commission has issued an advertisement on 26.11.2009 for filling up 143 posts of different categories and the last date of receipt of applications was 28.12.2009. The age of the candidate is required to be minimum 21 years and CWP No. 16091 of 2010 maximum 35 years on the cut-off date given in the advertisement i.e. 1.1.2009 (P-1). The claim of the petitioner is that on the date of advertisement, she was eligible because her date of birth is 20.9.1998 and she has attained 21 years of age when the advertisement was issued on 26.11.2009 and fixing of 1.1.2009 as the cut-off date for determining the eligibility on the basis of age is arbitrary. 3. The matter is no linger res integra. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Jasbir Rani v. State of Punjab, (2002) 1 SCC 124, has held that prescription of cut-off date is obligatory because it removes any uncertainty with regard to eligibility. In the case of Jasbir Rani (supra) the cut-off date was two weeks prior to the advertisement and the same was upheld. In para 11 of the judgment the following observations have been made: “ In the absence of a statutory provision regarding a cut-off date by which an applicant is to satisfy the prescribed eligibility qualification pertaining to age, the date has to be fixed at the time of issuing the advertisement. In the first advertisement the applications were invited from male candidates only; later, it was decided to throw open the recruitment to eligible female candidates also and in pursuance of the said decision the second advertisement was issued on 19.9.1998. In such circumstances the appointing authority while issuing the second advertisement fixed the same cut-off date as in the first. If this had not been done then there would have 2 CWP No. 16091 of 2010 been a difference in date by which the eligibility qualification pertaining to age was to be complied by male and female candidates. In the circumstances, no exception can be taken to the action of the authority fixing the same cut-off date in both the advertisements.” 4. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the challenge raised by the petitioner that the cut-off date of 1.1.2009 for determining the eligibility of minimum age of 21 years suffers from any arbitrariness or is violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. There is, thus, no merit in the instant petition. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) September 13, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 3