IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.WP No. 16342 of 2009. [O&M] Date of Decision: 23rd August, 2011. Kulwinder Singh & Anr. Petitioners through Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Mr. P.C.Goel, Addl. AG, Punjab. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 15896, 16342 and 16997 of 2009 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. The petitioners are aggrieved by clause 12 of the Advertisement dated 23.09.2009 prescribing 37 years as the maximum age for recruitment to the post of Art and Craft Teachers. This, according to the petitioners, is discriminatory and contrary to the instructions dated 24.09.2006 said to have been issued by the State Government. It may be mentioned here that the petitioners were more than 37 years of age on the cut-off date and have been rendered ineligible by the impugned clause of the advertisement. The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit relying upon a policy circular dated 15.11.2006 [Annexure R-1] which reads as under:- “I have been directed to write vide Government Circular letter No. 1/7/88-5PPI/16541 dated 24.09.1996 that as per the Para No. 2 of the subject cited letter, the upper age limit for the purpose of direct recruitment of Teachers has been increased from 35 to 42 years. The Government has reconsidered this issue and has decided that the upper age limit for the purpose of direct recruitment of Teachers will be of 37 years”. They have also referred to a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 11.07.2007 passed in CWP No. 18064 of 2009 [Jaswant Singh v State of Punjab & Ors.] on the same issue. The Division Bench judgment reads as follows:- “The issue of prescription of the upper age limit for entry into Government service has been examined repeatedly by this Court. In this behalf reference may be made to two decisions of a Division Bench of this Court i.e., Balwinder Kaur v State of Punjab [CWP No. 16040 of 2006, decided on 31.10.2006] and Kulwinder Kaur v State of Punjab [CWP No. 18310 of 2006, decided on 20.11.2006]. In the aforesaid judgments, this Court has arrived at the conclusion that the employer has an indefeasible right to lay down the upper age limit. For the reasons recorded herein above, we find no merit in this petition. Dismissed”. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The primary contention on behalf of the petitioners is that the policy circular dated 15.11.2006 [Annexure R-1] is not being implemented uniformly as some of the advertisements for recruitment of the Teachers in the Education Department, do prescribe more than 37 years as the maximum age. In my considered view, two wrongs can not make one right. If these are the abrasions in the implementation of the policy decision dated 15.11.2006 [Annexure R-1], it would not clothe the petitioners with a legally vested right to relax the maximum age condition in every case. As held by the Division Bench, prescription of minimum or maximum age is a policy matter which falls within the domain of the Executive and calls for no judicial review. The reliance placed upon by the petitioners on Rule 5 of the Punjab State Education [Class III] School Cadre Service Rules, 1997 is also misconceived and it does not improve their case in any manner. The aforementioned rule is couched in a negative manner and it says that no person shall be appointed by direct recruitment if he is less than 18 years and more than 42 years as on the 1st day of January of the year immediately preceding the last date fixed for submission of applications. The Rule merely prescribes that the 'minimum' or 'maximum' age limits to be not less than 18 years or more than 42 years. The Rule no where says that the maximum age must always be 42 years. For the reasons aforementioned, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned Clause 12 of the advertisement dated 23.09.2009 [Annexure P-5]. Dismissed. August 23, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE