IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No. 3363 of 2010 1. SHAMBHU NATH SINGH S/O LATE DEO NARAYAN SINGH R/O VILL.- NAVILPUR, P.S.- BARHARIA, DISTT.- SIWAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY VETNARY COLLEGE, PATNA- 14 3. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION VETNARY COLLEGE, PATNA- 14 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY CUM COMMISSIONER DEPTT. OF STATE TRANSPORT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 2. 13.9.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and for the Bihar Staff Selection Commission. Advertisement No. 2607 has been issued inviting applications for appointment on the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector. The maximum age specified is 37 years as on 1.8.2004. The petitioner is stated to have attained 48 years of age. He seeks relaxation of age as specified in the advertisement. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that earlier Advertisement No. 53 of 1991 was published inviting applications for the post of Motor Vehicle Inspector. The petitioner had applied. The selection process remained inconclusive and the petitioner has become overage in the meantime. Long duration of no appointment requires a benefit of age relaxation to be given to him. The relief sought is to annul the entire ongoing selection process of Motor Vehicle Inspectors with direction to publish a fresh advertisement, with age relaxation. 2 Counsel for the State from the counter affidavit submits that age requirement has to be fixed in accordance with the Bihar Transport (Technical) Cadre Rules, 2003. Unfortunately, both sides have not placed the statutory age limitation before the Court from the relevant Rules. The Court therefore proceeds on the assumption that the petitioner is aggrieved by the requirement specified in the Advertisement under the Rules. The qualifications for recruitment, more particularly of age is to be decided by the employer keeping in mind his own requirement in view of the job profile and agility in the nature of the duties. There is no occasion for this Court to substitute its own view that for of the employer. This becomes more onerous when the age requirement is specified in statutory provision. The Court cannot make any observation or give any direction for relaxation of age contrary to Rules. The Supreme Court in (1996) 10 SCC 565 ( E. Ramakrishnan & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors.) at Paragraph-4 has observed as follows:- “4. It is then contended that the petitioners have turned overaged and, therefore, necessary direction may be given to regularize their service by filling up the unfilled posts. Even that relief also cannot be granted. If the petitioners have turned overaged on the date of recruitment, it would be for the appropriate Government to relax the age requirement and the petitioners have to stand in the queue and get selection 3 through the PSC. Thus what they get is only the right to appointment to the post.” In so far as the submission of the petitioner that he cannot be visited with consequences of delayed slection held by the respondents stands best answered by the observations of the Supreme Court in (2006) 9 SCC 507 ( Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors.) at Paragraph-22 which reads as follows:- “22. The Rules postulate timely determination of vacancies and timely appointments. The non-filling of vacancies for long not only results in the avoidable litigation but also results in creeping of frustration in the candidates. Further, non-filling of vacancies for a long time, deprives the people of the services of the judicial officers. This is one of the reasons of huge pendency of cases in the courts.” There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)