- (1.) IN this petition, the petitioners have prayed for quashing Clause -5(II) of the Advertisement no. 01 (CSSCE) 2012, published in the Daily Newspaper "Prabhat Khabar  in its Ranchi Edition dated 4th May, 2012, whereby the upper age limit has been fixed for appearing in the Jharkhand Secretariat Services Competitive Examination, 2012.
(2.) IT has been stated that the said examination is being held to fill up the vacant posts of Assistant, Stenographer and Lower Division Clerks in the Jharkhand Secretariat Services. The respondents are holding the examination for the first time after re -organization of the State of Jharkhand. The upper age of the said examination has been fixed for unreserved/general category as 35 years, other backward class -Schedule 1 and Backward Class Schedule -II -37 years, women(Unreserved, other Backward Class Schedule I and Backward Class Schedule II) -38 years, Scheduled Tribes/Scheduled Caste(Male and Female) -40 years and for Handicapped Persons there is additional relaxation of 5 years. The petitioners are general candidates and they have crossed the age of 35 years. They are otherwise eligible for the post in all respects, but due to the said upper age limit, they have been deprived of the opportunity to appear in the said examination. It has been stated that since last 12 years the examination has not been held, the State Government should have given much relaxation in upper age limit, so that more and more eligible persons would have appeared in the examination. By fixing the said maximum limit of age, the respondents have deprived the candidates of their opportunity of employment. The said clause prescribing the upper age limit is, therefore, unreasonable and discriminatory and the same is liable to be quashed. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents. Learned Advocate General, appearing on behalf of the respondents, submitted that the age has been fixed in accordance with the prescribed rules. So far as relaxation of age is concerned, it is a sole discretion of the State Government and no policy decision has been taken by the State Government for giving relaxation more than what is prescribed by the rules. The petitioners have also not approached any competent authority of the State Government for consideration of relaxation of age. He further submitted that since it is a policy matter of the State Government, no relief can be granted by this Court, as the same would amount to issuing mandamus in policy matter, which is beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and circumstances of the case as also submissions made by them.;