M.Katju, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Vivek Chaudhary for petitioner in the present writ petition as well as Sri R. K. Ojha in connected Writ Petition No. 9580 of 2000 and Sri Pushpendra for U. P. Public Service Commission as well as learned standing counsel.
(2.) The petitioner has done M.B.B.S. He has prayed that he should be called for interview for selection to the U. P. Provincial Medical Service. Annexure-3 to the writ petition is part of the advertisement, which states that the age of candidates should be between 21 to 32 years. However, there is also a mention in the advertisement that for "suyogya' candidates, the age limit can be relaxed to 40 years.
(3.) The petitioner has admittedly crossed the age of 32 years but he has prayed for relaxation of the age limit. It is not for this Court to grant age relexation as that can only be done by the competent authority. However, we are of the opinion that the mention in the impugned advertisement that the age relexation can be granted to 'suyogya' candidates to 40 years is wholly arbitrary. There is no definition of the word 'suyogya' candidate in the impugned advertisement or in any G. O or rule to which our attention has been drawn. The word 'suyogya' is wholly vague. In our opinion, there should have been some definition of the word 'suyogya' in which some specific objective criteria should have been mentioned. In the absence of such definition and objective criteria, the relexation for 'suyogya' candidate is, in our opnlon, wholly arbitrary and hence viotative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. AIR 1978 SC 597. the Supreme Court has held that arbitrariness violates Article 14 of the Constitution. The absence of an objective criteria to define the word 'suyogya' makes the relexation for 'suyogya candidate' wholly arbitrary and gives scope for the policy of pick and choose.;