In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh C.W.P. No. 5736 of 2008 Date of Decision: September 14, 2009 Rajbir Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Sailender Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. Ritu Bahri, DAG, Haryana, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for declaring Rule 13.7(2)(i)&(ii) of the Punjab Police (Haryana Amendment) Rules, 2001 (for brevity, the 2000 Rules’), as amended on 28.6.2001 (P-1). According to the amendment made in the Rule for promotion to the post of Head Constable the Ex-servicemen Constable could take B-1 test at the maximum age of 40 years. The petitioner is an Ex-serviceman and his date of birth is 21.11.1960. After discharge from the Army, he was appointed as Constable on 25.11.1998. On account of the fact that he does not answer the requirement of age prescribed in the 2001 Rules, he has approached this Court seeking declaration that he may be considered eligible and the bar of maximum CWP No. 5736 of 2008 age of 40 years prescribed by the Rules may not be enforced as it has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. His further prayer is that 5 years of service as Constable irrespective of the age should be considered sufficient. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and find that the maximum age limit prescribed by the Rules along with 10 years of service which makes a person eligible for taking B-1 test for promotion to the post of Head Constable, does not suffer from any legal or constitutional infirmity warranting interference of this Court. The State Government is well within its right to prescribe maximum age for promotional post along with other conditions keeping in view the requirement of the duties to be performed by an incumbent after promotion. A large number of factors entered consideration before deciding the maximum or minimum age criterion. All these factors are subjected to expert opinions collected by the department. The Courts are not equipped with the expertise of laying down such a criteria, therefore, always lean towards upholding the age criteria unless total arbitrariness is shown. The other argument that the petitioner may be considered for promotion as Exemptee Head Constable would also not require any detailed consideration because according to the requirement of Standing Order dated 3.12.2003, a Constable has to have 16 years of service for promotion as Exemptee Head Constable, which the petitioner is yet to complete. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) September 14, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 2