IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26-06-2008 CORAM : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN W.P. No. 13824 of 2008 and M.P. No. 1 of 2008 Dr. M.A. Bose .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary to Government Department of Health Fort St. George Chennai – 600 009 2. The Director of Medical Education No.162, E.V.R. Periyar High Road Kilpauk Chennai – 600 010 3. The Selection Committee rep. By its Secretary Directorate of Medical Education No.162, E.V.R. Periyar High Road Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010 .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Declaration as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr. R. Srinivas For Respondents : Mrs. Dakshayini Reddy Government Advocate ORDER The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a Writ of declaration declaring that the eligibility criteria fixed in Clause 15 (1) of the prospectus for the academic year 2008-2009 to admission to the three year higher speciality course in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges issued by the third respondent is illegal, unlawful, unreasonable, arbitrary and hence null and void and consequentially direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's candidature for Mch decree on merits and without reference to petitioner's age in accordance with law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Mr. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a Doctor, aged 64 years, completed M.S. Degree in General Surgery in the year 1982 and practising in Virudhunagar District; that he applied for a seat in Mch degree for Neurosurgery/Plastic Survery in the year 2007 and wrote the entrance examination; that in that discipline, only four seats were available out of which two seats were reserved for candidates from government service and two seats for candidates from private practice, but the petitioner was ranked in serial No.3 among private candidates, hence, he could not secure the admission; that the third respondent issued prospectus relating to admission to three year higher speciality course in Tamil Nadu Medical Colleges for 2008-2009 by surprisingly fixing maximum age limit of 50 years as on 30.06.2008, which is evident in clause 15 (1) of the said prospectus; that in view of the said condition, the petitioner was disentitled to apply, which is unfair, unlawful, illegal and the same was suddenly introduced only in the academic year 2008-2009, hence, the present writ petition has been filed for declaration to declare that the eligibility criteria fixed in Clause 15 (1) of the prospectus for the academic year 2008- 2009 is null and void and consequentially direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's candidature for Mch decree on merits. 3. On the above contention, this Court heard Mrs. Dakshayini Reddy, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, who submitted that the respondents are spending huge amount to each and every student of higher speciality course with the expectation to avail their knowledge and service to the society by appointing them in government service after completion of the course, keeping in mind the duration of the course is three years and age of superannuation is 58 for all government servants, hence, the said condition is valid, reasonable and nexus to the object to be achieved and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 4. This Court considered the submission of the counsel for both sides and perused the records placed. Classification based on minimum age prescribed for taking a particular examination is not beyond the powers of educational authorities, but only to obtain best material for a professional course. Prescribing determination of maximum or minimum age of the candidate for a particular course is not per se arbitrary. Basically, fixing of a cut off date for determining the maximum or minimum age required for a particular course is in the discretion of the authorities. Followed (Dr. Ami Lal Bhat vs. State of Rajasthan and others) AIR 1957 SC 2964, wherein in Para No.5, it was held thus:- 5. This contention, in our view, is not sustainable. In the first place the fixing of a cut-off date for determining the maximum or minimum age prescribed for a post is not, per se, arbitrary. Basically, the fixing of a cut-off date for determining the maximum or minimum age required for a post, is in the discretion of the rule-making authority or the employer as the case https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ may be. One must accept that such a cut-off date cannot be fixed with any mathematical precision and in such a manner as would avoid hardship in all conceivable cases. As soon as a cut-off date is fixed there will be some persons who fall on the right side of the cut-off date and some persons who will fall on the wrong side of the cut-off date. That cannot make the cut-off date, per se, arbitrary unless the cut-off date is so wide off the mark as to make it wholly unreasonable. This view was expressed by this Court in Union of India v. Parameswaran Match Works1 and has been reiterated in subsequent cases. In the case of A.P. Public Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra2 the relevant service rule stipulated that the candidate should not have completed the age of 26 years on the 1st day of July of the year in which the selection is made. Such a cut-off date was challenged. This Court considered the various steps required in the process of selection and said, “when such are the different steps in the process of selection the minimum or maximum age of suitability of a candidate for appointment cannot be allowed to depend upon any fluctuating or uncertain date. If the final stage of selection is delayed and more often it happens for various reasons, the candidates who are eligible on the date of application may find themselves eliminated at the final stage for no fault of theirs. The date to attain the minimum or maximum age must, therefore, be specific and determinate as on a particular date for candidates to apply and for the recruiting agency to scrutinise the applications”. This Court, therefore, held that in order to avoid uncertainty in respect of minimum or maximum age of a candidate, which may arise if such an age is linked to the process of selection which may take an uncertain time, it is desirable that such a cut-off date should be with reference to a fixed date. Therefore, fixing an independent cut-off date, far from being arbitrary, makes for certainty in determining the maximum age. 5. In the absence of any legal or constitutional infirmity, the Court will not substitute its judgment for that of academicians as if sitting in appeal. The Court can interfere if there is no principle according to which the State has fixed the age limit. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that fixation of age limit is discrimination and unreasonableness. The reasonableness has to be determined with reference to the circumstances. Article 14 only https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ needs that persons similarly circumstanced should be treated alike, both in privileges conferred and liability imposed. The principle of equality does not mean that every 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. Age form a rational basis in relation to the object of a particular subjects legislation, hence, fixing 50 years as maximum age as on 30.06.2008 by the respondents is perfectly valid. 6. The respondents contended that the duration of the superspeciality course is three years, for which lot of amount is being spent by the respondents for imparting such course. After completion of the course, the services of those persons are necessarily to be utilised for the society. If the persons exceeds 50 years of age as on the date of entering into the said course, the object of imparting such education cannot be achieved as minimum period of five years is required to be in government service, which period cannot be held as unreasonable. 7. An argument was advanced by the petitioner that in the event of not rendering service to the State Government, the candidate is liable to the Government certain amount towards compensation, which even the petitioner agrees to pay is concerned, the payment of compensation alone cannot fulfil the conditions stipulated or object sought to be achieved. In the case on hand, the petitioner is about 64 years old. Of course, his spirit to pursue specialised education at this age is appreciable, but if there is direct nexus between fixation of age limit and the object of the government, the latter alone prevails. It is needless to mention that the petitioner cannot be inducted in government service after completion of the superspeciality course, hence, this Court is of the view that the conditions imposed in clause 15 (1) of the prospectus for the academic year 2008-2009 to admission to the three year higher speciality course in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges issued by the third respondent is valid and reasonable. 8. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rsh To 1. The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Department of Health Fort St. George Chennai – 600 009 2. The Director of Medical Education No.162, E.V.R. Periyar High Road Kilpauk Chennai – 600 010 3. The Secretary, Selection Committee Directorate of Medical Education No.162, E.V.R. Periyar High Road Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010 1 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.32639 WP No. 13824 of 2008 ck [co] gkg/8.7 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/