i":'a'.;^'a- ^^, HIGH COURT OF JUDJCATURE CHHATnSGAR BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH ^ GORAM:MON'BLESHRIS.R.NAYAK,CJ^^^^^^^^S & HON'B!Ji^HRIC>.R.DESHMUKH,3,y^^ B ^s-y WritPgtitiori Mb. 3624 of2006 x' •^t. VERSUS Present: Shri RajeshPandey, leamedcounselfcirthepetitiQne^r':' ^ Shri Prastiant, Mishra, learned Addl. K(3^?with;Shri Suniesh Bajaj.learrieelDy.G.A.fertheSteteAresRonelentNo. 1-' - ••^^•:.--^ '".'.: •'.;'•.' ' ' •', •'"•• -: 6RALORDER " lPassedon21stJuly,2006) The following oral order of the Courtwaspassed by ^ S.R. NAYAK,CJ. J?he petitioner in this writ petition is one Kumari Vandana Gupta. The date of birth of the-petitioneris^17-07-1987. The petitioner has passed 12th class examinatibn (10+2}>in the year 2005 with distinction securing 84% of marks conducted by^the C.G. Board of' Secondary, Education,.Raipur. :'-"! ; : : :; " .' •.'^•,'.Sg,,;;.;y'::-;1^ /.-'^ ^> ; . . ' •'; ".^^.••.^%;"..;.' •y^.— 2. |n this writ.petitiori, fie petftioner Kas chal|engedttTe;:cohstitUtjonal; :-:'fr^?:^:;^^:.''''';:'^'te:.;^:' validity oWhe ageiilyalifiGation of 21 ,years prescmbed for^the R^^^ « '•11 •• ' '1.,' ::1'^.'"1 : •11-.^ ;"-.';''- ":'-?s:;. •••^s.:~. ^: PETITIONER ; Kumari Vandana Gupta.^age "l.&jtears D/o Shri Mahesfci Gupta.^R^ ;At:;-post Pendra'Tahsil Eenclra^Rioad^ DistriGt Bilaspur (C.G.y &v ,^y"Wx.::''! l'^i ^ RESPONDENTS 1. State of^Ghtiattisgarh, Threugh: TM& SeGretary, Local Self Govemmentand Urban Administration Departn'ient,^ D.K.S.BhawanRaipur(G.G.)f;^ 2. The Nagar Panchayat Pendra, .Distnct Bilaspur; ''G.G.^ thrQiigli; ^ ;its Ghief MunicipalOfflGeP'-^SS--•".>-'- - z- ¥,.. Shiksha Karmi Grade-111 underthe M.P. (now C.G.).Municipality Shiksha Karmi (Recruitmentand Conditions ofSeryice) Rules, 1998 (forshort"the Rules")as amendedvideNotification No. F.4-917-98-1, dated 17-09-1998. 3. The erstwhile undivided State of Madhya Pradesh in exercise of powers conferred bySection 433read with Section 58 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and Section 355 read with Section 95 of the Madhya Pradesh Municipalities Act, 1961 framed the Rules. In theoriginal Rules, ggelimit of 18 years was prescribed as the minimumageforthepostofShikshaKarmiGrade-111. However, bywayof amendment vide Notification No. F.4-917-98-1, dated 17-09-1998, the minimum age limit was raised to 21 years. ' 4. The constitutional yalidity of the amended provision is questioned on the ground that' thOugh the Government has hot amended the educational qualifications prescribed for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-111, it haschosen to raise the minimumage to 21 years forthe said ••^ postwithout any reason and rhyme. In otherwords, according to learned cburisel for the petitioner, the impugned provision is arbitrary, unreasonable and violativeof Article 14 of the Constitution. At the same time, it is also casually asserted that the impughed provision is also violatiyirfofArticles 16,19 (1) (e), 21, 38and 41 ofthe Constitution of India without anywhere elaborating how thoseArticlesare violated. 5. We have heard Shri Rajesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Prashant Mishra, learned Addl. Advocate General for theState. f -3- ^ k 6. Shri Rajesh Pandey, leamed counsel for the petitioner contended that underthe unamended provision the petitioner would have applied for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-111, but, having regard to the amended provision she is ineligible to apply for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-111. It was contended that though the petitioner has acquired the prescribed educational qualifications, she is ineligible to apply for the post because of the amendment enhancing the minimum age to 21 years from 1 8 years. It was submitted that the petitioner inorder to apply for the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade-111 has to wait for 2-3 years though right now she has acquired the prescribed qualifications forthe said post. On these reasons, Shn Rajesh Pandey, learned counsel forthe petitioner would contend that enhancing the minimum age from 18yearsto21 years is unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory and liable to be declared as invalid On the touGhstone ofArticle 14 ofthe Gonstitutionof India. 7. ShriPrashantMishra.learnedAddl.Advocate General, percontra, would contend thatprescribing qualifications.such'as minimum and maximum age,educational qualifications, experience a candidate should .possess is the exclusive power of the Govemment and the policy decision taken by the Government to prescribe the minimum age of 21 years could not be interfered with. Learned Addl. Advocate General would also conterid that what Article 16 (1) read with Article14 of the Constitution of .tedia guarantees is right to apply and to be considered for appointment to a public post or office "rf a candidate possesses the prescribed qualifications and not appointment to the public post. Learned Addl. Advocate Generalwould conclude thatthe petitioner has utterly failed to / ' make outanyground to declaretheimpugned provision as invalid. '.;• Y, il ' - 2t- ^1 •^ -< tv fe... 8. Before us it wasnot contended byShri Rajesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner that delegation of legislative power conferred on theState Government underSection 433 readwith Section 58 oftheM.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956and Section 355 read with Section 95 of the M.P. Municipalities Act, 1961suffersfrom 'excessive delegation', but, his specific contention is that though the Parent Acts may not be u/fra wres the Constitution, the impugned provision viotates the right guaranteed to the petitioner under ArtiGle 16 (1) read with Article 14 of the Constitution. Although, a delegated legislatiQn like the one impugned in this writ petition could be assailed on various grounds, such as, the Parent Act itself is u/(/a wres the Gonstitytion; itis ultravires VT\Q ParentAct in the sense that itisin excess ofthe power conferred bythe ParentAct orthat it is in conflictwith the Parent Act orthat it is in conflict with the prescribed procedure tajd down in the Parent Act or that it is unreasonable, arbitrary, discriminatory etc, in view ofthe contention raised by Shri Rajesh Pandey, learned counsel fpr the petitioner, the onlything to be seen in this case is whether theimpugned provision is ultra wes the Constitution in the sense that it violates the right guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 16 (1) read with Article14 of the Constitution of India and whether it is unreasonable, arbitrary and discnminatory. 9. It is true that Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 16 guarantee equality pf lopportunity to all citizens in the matter of appointment to anyoffice or any I . '. . ' • . '•.•',.' . . " ' .. . •• , . • • other employmentunder the State. Articte 16 isonly an instance of the application of the general ruleof equality laid down in Article 14 and it should be constryed as such. What Clsiuse (1) of-Article 16 of the Constitutionof<lr(dia guarantees is an equal opportunity to all citizens to "f'.: •:..::;:'1. \ ^ 1: , •' .. : : apply for 6mployrp^nt:under the State. In other words, what Article 16 (1) ». -s- \i A1 & guarantees is an equality of opportunity and not any right to be appointed to the post forwhich he applies or any other postunder the State. Even right to applyand to be considered for appointment to the public post could be conclitioned by the State by laying down the qualifications. Therefore, a citizen who does not possess the prescribed qualification under the Rules is not entitled to apply and to be considered to a post advertised. Minimum and maximum age has been prescribed by the State in the Rules governing recruitment to public posts. Nobody can question the power of the State to prescribe minimum and maximum age limit for any public post as they prescribe other qualifications.such as educational qualifications, experience qualifications etc. for appointment to public posts. 10. The impugned provision is enacted by the State Government in exercise ofthe delegated power. It is solely for the statutory delegate to consider as to when and in respectof what subject matter the Rules are to be enactedand amended. Thereis no provision eith^r in the Constitution or in the Parent Act which permits the Court to direct or advise the "statutory delegate in the matters of policy or to sermonize qua any matters which fall within theirlegitimate domain of rule-making power provided the statutoryjflelegate keeps itselfwithin its constitutional and statutory limits. 11,^ It is wel.l settled thatit is for the rule-making authority or for the Legislature to regulate the method ofrecruitment, prescribe qualifications etc. This is nott th®Rfgvince of the Court to trench- into and prescribe or vary qualifications, in particular, when the matters are of.policy decision or technical nature. 'Generally speaking, it i&^ not for the Court to consider ^ 1 ' : : relevance of qualiflcations prescribed for the various posts tobe filled up . "ix'< :\ !' - _ "fc" rU3 l^i by the State. The Court is not entitled to sit in judgment over the policy decision taken bythe rule-making authority unless it is shown thatsuch policy decision is ex facie arbitrary and discriminatory. If the rule-making authority is ofthe opinion thata person who is going to be appointed as Shiksha Karmi Grade-111 shoyld be matured enough todeal withyoung children, impart propereducation and therefore, thought it appropriate to raise the minimum age from 18 years to 21 years, its policy decision eannot becondemned as absurd and senselessso as toattract the wrath ofArticle 14 postulates. The minimum age qualification prescribed under the impugned provision based on a policy decision of the State cannot lightly be jhterfered with by the Court in the premiseof'the subjective perceptionof the Courtwithregard to reasonablenessor in the premise of the pereeption ofthe petitioner in that regard or on theground that though the petitipner hasacquired prescribed educational qualifications she is not eligible toapplyforthe post ofShiksha Karmi Grade-111 right now. Service Rules are not enacted or framed by the Legislatufe or the Executive Government, as the case may be, keeping inmind an individual applicant who may apply for the post, but, to give opportunity to all similarly circumstanced persons toapply for appointment to public posts and to iterms and conditions of various services under theState. —'- -^y J12. The principle of equalityenshrined in Article 14 ofthe Constitution of India does not mean thatevery law must have universal application for all persons who are not by nature, attainment or circumstances in the same position, as the varying needs of different classes of persons often require separate treatment. What Article ,14 mandates is that there should be no dfecriminStion betweenone pereonand another if as regardsthe . t£" <: . . .. .. . ... . .. •: subject matterof'the legisiation theirposition is the same. In other words, '&°; e. -^- its action must riotbe arbitrary, but, must be based onsomevalid phnciple which itself must not be irrationalor discriminatory. There is no reason to condemn the impugned provision rajsing the minimum age to 21 yearsas discriminatory simply because in view 6f the said minimum age qualification, the petitioner is not entitled to apply for the post ofShiksha Karmi Grade-111. What Article 14 prohibits is class legislation and not reasonable classification for the purposeof legislation. Ifthe Legislature or the delegate of the Legislature takes care to reasonably classify persons forlegislative purposes and if it deals equally with all persons belongingtoa "we//-deffnedc/ass", itis notopen tothe charge of denialof equalprotection on the ground that the law does not .apply to other pereons. Persons like the petitioner who have acquired preseribed educational qualifications, but, whoare below 21 years of age and others who have acquired prescribed educational qualifications, but.who are of 21 years of age cannet be grouped together for appointment, and all of them could not be regarded as the persons belonginp to a'well-defined c/ass" for the purpose of applying equality clause. 13. Thus, looking from any angle the petitioner has utterly failed to make out any ground whatsoever to declare the impugned provision as unconstitytional. The writpetition fails and it is accordingly dismissed, however, withnoorder as to costs. , Sd/- Chief Justice Sd-/ Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Subbu ~»v.'