- (1.) Heard Shri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Rahul Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Ashok Shukla, learned counsel for the Commission.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the advertisement bearing No. A-5/E-1/2019 advertised by the U.P. Public Service Commission, Parayagraj for combined State Engineering Services Regulations, 2020 and for quashing the cut off date 01.07.2019 mentioned in the said advertisement with a consequential prayer for directing the U.P. Public Service Commission to prescribe the cut off date after the advertisement date 30.01.2019 or 01.01.2020. Prayer has also been made for accepting the online form of the petitioner which has been rejected on the ground that he is about two months short of the minimum age which is 21 prescribed for the aforesaid selection. A writ of mandamus has also been sought for holding the cut off date 01.07.2019 as arbitrary and unreasonable. The facts of the case in brief are that on 30.12.2019 an advertisement was published by the U.P. Public Service Commission inviting applications from eligible persons for being considered in the Combined State Engineering Services (Genera Recruitment/ Special Recruitment) Examination, 2019 for appointment on various posts of Assistant Engineer in various department of the Government of U.P. 692 posts were advertised for general recruitment and 20 posts for special recruitment. As per the conditions of recruitment mentioned in the advertisement itself, a minimum age limit which the candidate must have attained as on 01.07.2019 was prescribed as 21 years, whereas, the maximum age limit prescribed was 40 years. One of the conditions mentioned in the advertisement was that a candidate who was entitled in respect of his age to appear at a selection in any year in which no selection is made, shall be deemed to be entitled in respect of his age to appear at the next following selection. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is not covered by this condition.
(3.) The grievance of the petitioner is that while such relaxation has been provided to a candidate who was entitled in respect of his age to appear at a selection in any year in which no selection was made by permitting him to appear in the next selection, even if, he has exceeded the maximum of age limit as that is the only situation in which the aforesaid condition would apply, no such similar relaxation has been provided to a candidate such as the petitioner who fall short of the minimum age limit by a few months. In this context Shri Sushil Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner invited the attention of the Court to Para 9 of the writ petition to drive home the point that the recruitment to various services under the Govt. of U.P. are not being held annually as should be done and they are being held after a gap of 7-10 years, therefore, if the petitioner who is short by about two months for the selection in question is left out then possibly he may not get a chance to seek employment under the Government for the next 7 or 10 years which gravely prejudiced the petitioner. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as the advertisement was issued on 30.12.2019, therefore, the cut off date 01.07.2019 was prescribed in view of Rule 6 of the U.P. Recruitment to Service (Age Limit) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1972'), however, if the date of advertisement was 01.01.2020 then the cut off date would have been 01.07.2020 in keeping with the aforesaid Rule 6, therefore, he says that this date of issuance of advertisement becoming the relevant factor is arbitrary and leaves the valuable rights of the petitioner to mere chance. He also says that because of the aforesaid condition where a person who was eligible to appear in the selection based on his age, could not do so on account of the selection not being held can appear in the subsequent selection even if he has become overage may be after 7 years or 10 years, is arbitrary and unreasonable. He says that this power to relax in fact vests with the State Government and the Public Service Commission can not prescribe such relaxation in the advertisement. He relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1981 SC 2138; R. K. Garg and Ors. Vs. Union of India (Para 24); AIR 1992 SC 1213; Kumar Padma Prasad Vs. Union of India and Ors. (Para 22, 23) and AIR 1981 SC 487; Ajay Hasia and Ors. Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors. (Para 16) in support of his contention.;