IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11128 of 2010 1. Kumari Mina W/O Sri Prakash Kumar Sinha R/O Vill , P.O.& P.S.Shikandra, Distt-Jamui 2. Pratima Kumari W/O Sri Ashok Kumar R/O Vill Kharagpur, P.O.Abgila Chaurasa, P.S.Chandradip, Distt-Jamui Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. Social Welfare Department Government Of Bihar Through Its Principal Secretary, Old Secretariat, Patna 3. Directorate Of Social Welfare , Department Of Welfare Government Of Bihar, Through Its Secretary, Patna 4. Personnel And Adminsistrative Reforms Department Government Of Bihar, Through Its Secretary, Old Secretariat, Patna 5. District Officer Jamui 6. Child Development Project Officer Shikandra , Distt-Jamui 7. Child Development Project Officer Aliganj, Distt-Jamui --------- For the Petitioner: Mr.Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rabindra Kumar Choubey,SC 8 -------- 2. 09.08.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State. The petitioners are stated to be Anganwari Sevikas desirous to be considered for appointment on the post of Lady Supervisor against the 25% quota reserved for them. It is contended that they fulfill all conditions of eligibility except for age. The process for selection commenced on 1.4.2008 but never materialized. The petitioners were applicants therein. By reason of delay attributable to the respondents the petitioners have now become over age under the fresh process of selection initiated in June 2010. They cannot be visited with the consequence of the delay in finalization of the selection process. This Court in CWJC No. 14475 of 2001 had made observation for expediting the process of selection. 2 The petitioners are entitled to due relaxation of the age requirement as otherwise they shall now be disqualified from consideration as being above the age of 45 years. Counsel for the State has submitted that there was no indefeasible right in the petitioners for appointment. If the earlier process of selection did not attain finality they can have no claim thereunder. The consideration in CWJC No. 14475 of 2001 was not in context of the selection process initiated in 2008. Merely because the petitioners may otherwise be eligible to be considered for appointment as Lady Supervisor under the 25% quota and a process of selection may have been initiated, it shall not vest a right in them to be considered and appointed. If the process of earlier selection did not fructify it may be unfortunate, leading to heart burning in the petitioners. But that shall not vest a right in them to demand age relaxation in the form of a mandamus from the Court. In a selection process, there is no indefectible right in the candidate to be considered and appointed. The conditions of eligibility including the maximum age is for the employer to decide and not for the Court to dictate. If any advertisement is delayed, affecting the right to consideration on grounds of age, there is no legal right in a candidate to demand a pro-rata age relaxation. No allegations of malafide to favour any individual candidate or a class of candidates by any intentional delay has been urged. The claim for age relaxation on a delayed advertisement fell for consideration in (1997) 6 SCC 614 ( Ami Lal Bhat (Dr) v. State of Rajasthan,) and was answered in the negative:- 3 “10….It is urged that in the case of all those persons who are adversely affected because the advertisement for recruitment is issued later than the occurrence of the vacancy, corresponding age relaxation should be given to all candidates……..” 11. In our view this kind of an interpretation cannot be given to a rule for relaxation of age. The power of relaxation is required to be exercised in public interest in a given case; as for example, if other suitable candidates are not available for the post, and the only candidate who is suitable has crossed the maximum age-limit; or to mitigate hardship in a given case. Such a relaxation in special circumstances of a given case is to be exercised by the administration after referring that case to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. There cannot be any wholesale relaxation because the advertisement is delayed or because the vacancy occurred earlier especially when there is no allegation of any mala fides in connection with any delay in issuing an advertisement. This kind of power of wholesale relaxation would make for total uncertainty in determining the maximum age of a candidate. It might be unfair to a large number of candidates who might be similarly situated, but who may not apply, thinking that they are age-barred. We fail to see how the power of relaxation can be exercised in the manner contended. It has been observed at Paragraph 22 in (2006) 9 SCC 507 (Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission) that it is proper to hold selections in time so that unnecessary heart burning is avoided. “22. The Rules postulate timely determination of vacancies and timely appointments. The non-filling of vacancies for long not only results in the avoidable litigation but also results in creeping of frustration in the candidates.” The issue of age relaxation claimed by the petitioners is more of a policy matter for the respondents to decide keeping in mind their own requirements and pattern of utilization for the persons selected. In (1996) 10 SCC 565 (E. Ramakrishnan v. State of Kerala).it has been observed as follows:- 4 4…..If the petitioners have turned overaged on the date of recruitment, it would be for the appropriate Government to relax the age requirement and the petitioners have to stand in the queue and get selection through the PSC……” If the petitioners represent for age relaxation, the Court only expects that an appropriate decision is taken expeditiously so that the petitioners are not non-suited due to sheer in action. The writ application stands disposed in the aforesaid terms. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)