N.N.Mithal - (1.) THE U. P. Public Service Commission invited applications for the State Judicial Service examination 1990 on prescribed forms upto 4-8-1990 and only those between the age of 21 years and 30 years were eligible to appear. THE prescribed minimum educational qualification being a graduate with law degree.
(2.) THE petitioners' case is that fixing of upper age limit of 30 years for P.C.S. (J) is discriminiatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian constituion, besides being unreasonable. According to him for other State Services the minimum educational qualification is graduation while the lower and upper age limits are 21 and 30 years respectively. For PC.S (J) examination, however, the minimum educational qualification is graduation and in addition bachelors degree in law but the minimum and maximum age limits have been kept the same. THE argument advanced is that when fixing additional educational qualification have been prescribed, the upper age limit of 30 years in the case of candidates desiring to appear in P.C.S. (J) examination is discriminatory because acquisition of this additional educational qualification in law takes at least three extra years. It is not denied that the law course is now of three years duration and therefore, it requires at least 18 years of education to become eligible for appearing in P.C.S. (J) examination. On the other hand it takes only 15 years of education in the case of other State Services although the pay scales for all the services is the same he from Rs. 2200/- to Rs. 4000/-. THE up shot of the petitioner's argument is that for the P.C.S. (J) examination the maximum age limit should be revised upwards by three years to 33 years because candidates appearing in that examination spend three more years to become eligible for it. It is urged that as a consequence the total number of attempts available to such candidates is also reduced. Sri S. K. Varma, for the petitioner submitted that an average student normally passes his High Schools examination at the age of 14 years and then spends two years for his Intermediate and three years thereafter for doing his graduation. Thus he becomes eligible for other State Services at the age of 19 years. In the case of P.C.S. (J) candidate however, he can hope to acquire the minmum qualification only at the stage of 22 years. He therefore, submits that fixing the minimum age as 21 years is unrealistic and unreasonable. Similarly the upper age limit of 30 years also is unreasonable as it reduces the number of attempts available to such candidates. Accordingly, his argument was that upper age limit should be raised by three years to compensate for three extra years required in obtaining law degree to become eligible to appear P.C.S. (J) competition. Though on the face of it the argument may appear to be attractive but on a closer scrutiny it is devoid of any merit. The Government is free to fix minimum and maximum ages and also to prescribe minmum educational qualification for entry to a particular service under the State. So long the rules are same for all who desire to enter a particular service there can be no question of discrimination among that class of pepole. Candidates appearing for difference State Government Services are not similarly placed and therefore difference in eligible its conditions cannot be regarded discriminatory. The learned counsel them submitted that even if the rule be not discriminatory it is atleast unreasonable for the reasons mentioned earlier.
(3.) THE learned counsel sought support for his submission by reference to a few decisions. In Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur, 1990 SC 1402 the court was only concerned with fairness in adminstrative action and was not dealing with reasonablness or otherwise of any rule. THE case of Km. Srilekha Vidya- rthi v. State of U. P.. 1990 ALR 989 the Supreme Court was dealing with Stale Action terminating the services of District Government counsel enbloc by a Government Circular. THE circular was struck down on the ground of arbitratines in State action. None of these cases touch upon the question raised here. THE question for examination here only is whether the Rule fixing 30 years as the upper age limit for P.C.S. (J) examination was unreasonable ? It does not appear to be so. THE counsel urged that State has not carred to enter contest in order to justify its action in fixing the upper age ceiling. However, since no relief had been sought against the State it was not obliged to put in contest in a void. On the other hand, appart from the fact that a candidate for P.C.S. (J) has to spend three extra years to obtain law degree no other ground has been pressed to term that age ceiling was un-reasonable. Even though a candidate for the P.C.S. (J) examination may have to put three more years in acquiring additional degree in law, but that circumstance alone cannot be sufficient for rendering the rule as unreasonable. When drawing up rules for a particular service not only that regard has to be had to the minimum qualifications esential to it but also to the number of years that the person is likely to be available for service after selection. A proper balance between the two has to be maintained.;