IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 5235 of 2009 Date of decision: April 20, 2009 Sachin son of Sube Singh Dhillon ..... PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. D.R.Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? M.M.KUMAR, J. The instant petition is directed against the action of the Haryana Staff Selection Commission-respondent No. 3 in declaring the petitioner ineligible for the post of Inspector of Police (Male) in Police Department, Haryana on the ground that he does not fulfill the age requirement as specified in Rule 12.6 (2) (c) of the Punjab Police Rules as applicable to Haryana (for brevity 'the Rules'). The aforesaid requirement concerning the age is indicated in the advertisement dated 22.07.2008 (Annexure P-1) and in the column of age, it has been specifically mentioned that a candidate is required to be of 21-27 years of age and the exact date on which the age is to be determined would be 01.02.2008. CWP No. 5235 of 2009 -2- Apart from stating and arguing that the rule is ultra vires of provisions of Article 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to substantiate this argument any further by urging how and why the rule is ultra vires Constituion. It is necessary to refer to provisions of rule 12.6 (2) (c) of the rules, which is extracted below for facility of reference:- “12.6 (c) He must not be, on or before the 1st day of February next preceding the date of submission of application to the Public Service Commission/Subordinate Service Selection Board, less than 21 years and more than 27 years of age for the post of an Inspector or Sub Inspector. Provided that the Legal Practitioners selected for appointment as prosecuting Sub Inspectors may be appointed up to 30 years of age. Provided further that the Inspector General of Police may waive the maximum age limit in any case under special circumstances with prior consultation with Public Service Commission/Subordinate Services Selection Board.” Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find that there is nothing in the arguments, which may sustain the challenge that the above-quoted rule ultra vires of Article 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution. For selection to the post of Inspector, which is quite superior post in the hierarchy of police, therefore, the condition of age of 21 years on a particular specified date can legally be provided. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 168, specifically held that in the absence of a fixed date indicated in the advertisement/notification inviting applications with reference to which the requisite qualifications has to be judged, the only CWP No. 5235 of 2009 -3- certain date for scrutiny of the qualifications would be the last date for making the applications. Similar view has been expressed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in another judgment in the case of Dr. M.V.Nair v. Union of India and others (1993) 2 SCC 429. Once the Supreme Court has given liberty to the Government to specify date for recruitment with reference to which the qualifications and eligibility is to be determined then it would not be possible to conclude that presumption of 21 years of age on February 1 of the year, when advertisement was issued, suffer from any legal infirmity. We are further of the view that fixing of age of recruitment to service entry is within the legislative competence or the rule making authority, which of course is subject to the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution. There are numerous factors which enter at the time of determining the age of recruitment to service. In the present case, the hierarchy of the police would show that at the first level Constable is recruited then he may by process of promotion become Head Constable. Thereafter if his service record shows satisfactory performance and he pass the prescribed examination then a Head Constable could be promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector and then as Sub Inspector. In the hierarchy four channels of promotion have to be achieved before a Constable could be appointed as Inspector. In the present case, the age of 21 years as on February 1, 2008 has been fixed by the Rule which cannot be considered to be unfair or arbitrary because an incumbent of the post of Inspector would require a particular level of maturity and experience. The petitioner even otherwise is young and is likely to have numerous other opportunities. Therefore, we find no arbitrariness in the fixation of 21 years age as on February 1, 2008. CWP No. 5235 of 2009 -4- Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed. ( M.M.KUMAR ) JUDGE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE April 20, 2009 pj