IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12022 of 2010 1. ANIL KUMAR THAKUR S/O PARAM HANS THAKUR R/O VILL.+P.O.- RAMPUR BAGHEL, P.S.- DESARI, DISTT.- VAISHALI 2. PRABHAT KR. SINGH S/O SRI RAMDEO SINGH C/O HEERANAND JHA, 547, P-I, ATIDHI NIWAS, VIDYAPUR, P.S.- KANKARBAGH, PATNA 3. JITENDRA KR. SINGH S/O SRI KAMLA PD. SINGH MAGADH NIKETAN, ROAD NO.-6, RAJIV NAGAR, P.S.- RAJIV NAGAR, PATNA 4. PRAKASH KR. SINGH S/O LATE MUNDRIKA SINGH SOUTH OF D.V.C. COLONY, NEW YARPUR, P.S.- GARDANIBAGH, PATNA 5. HARLESH KR. SINGH S/O SRI JAINANDAN SINGH R/O VILL.- CHATAR, P.O.- WABHANGANWA, P.S.- BARHARA, DISTT.- BHOJPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS (NOW GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT), GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR KARAMCHARI CHAYAN AYOG (STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, BIHAR), PATNA ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, Senior Adv. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Adv. For the State:- Mr. A.K. Dwevedi, Adv. For the Staff Selection Commission:- Mr. S.S. Sundaram, Adv. ------------- 2. 24.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, for the State and for the Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Commission’). An Advertisement No. 110 of 2010 has been published by the Commission on a requisition sent for appointment on the post of Secretariat Assistant. The petitioners are aggrieved by the age restriction of maximum 37 years as on 1.8.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that an advertisement for the posts in question has been published after nearly ten years. 2 In the year 1999, the minimum age specified was 18 years in contradistinction to 21 years now and the maximum age specified then was 35 years which also came to be relaxed subsequently. Strong reliance is placed on a Government policy decision dated 23.1.2006 issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department inter alia noticing that where vacancies could not be advertised in due time relaxation of age restriction may be considered appropriately in terms of the discussion contained therein. It is submitted that this policy decision has been followed in respect of certain other advertisements. Conditions of an advertisement including that of age are for the employer to decide. Whether any relaxation of the conditions including that of age has to be granted or not is again for the employer to decide. This Court cannot rewrite the advertisement. If a policy decision dated 23.1.2006 has been taken with regard to relaxation of age due to delay in initiation of recruitment process, what further steps are required to be taken in light thereof with regard to the maximum age relaxation under Advertisement No. 110 of 2010 so that the purpose of the policy decision is fulfilled is for the appointing 3 authority and the Commission to decide. Needless to state that if the policy decision dated 23.1.20010 subsists, the respondents are required to give full effect to it with regard to the present advertisement also in due time and in a manner that the purpose of the policy decision is fulfilled by either extending the date for submission of applications or issuance of a corrigendum etc. as the case may be. If the respondents propose that the policy decision dated 23.1.2006 has no application to the present advertisement, they shall be required to pass a reasoned and speaking order spelling out the grounds to facilitate judicial review, should the need arises. This Court expects the respondents to take appropriate final decision in the matter expeditiously so that the claims of the petitioners are not frustrated by sheer inaction in allowing the examinations to be held and render the present order wholly infructuous. The application stands disposed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)