Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. In both the writ petitions, petitioners, who belong to BC -I category, seek age relaxation to appear in the selection process for the post of Veterinary Doctor under Advertisement No. 9/2015 issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "JPSC"). Under clause 6 of the advertisement the minimum age prescribed in any category is 22 years while age limit prescribed in respect of BC -I and II category is 37 years with five years relaxation. The dates within which candidates if born would be eligible for the said category also clarified being 1.8.1976 to 1.8.1991. The prayer for relaxation of age is being made by both the petitioners who admittedly have become overage by that reckoning of age, on the basis of long interregnum in any such recruitment process on the post of Veterinary Doctor. It is submitted that petitioners, who are otherwise qualified having graduate degree in Veterinary Science from the recognized Birsa Agricultural University could have been eligible if relaxation in age be given in the matter of recruitment process taken after a long period and given them the opportunity to participate along with other candidates. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Sahay vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in : (2008) 3 JCR 267 and in the case of Subodh Kumar Jha vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in, (2005) 3 JLJR 622 to seek relaxation of age. On these grounds counsel for the petitioners has supported the prayer of the petitioners.
(2.) Learned counsel for the State and JPSC both submit that fixation of upper age limit in the matter of recruitment of any employee is within the policy domain of the Executive/Employer and unless it is shown arbitrary or irrational, no interference is warranted. It is submitted that any delay or long interval in such recruitment exercise cannot be made a ground to seek relaxation in age limit, which is prescribed in terms of the Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha Circular bearing memo No. 2096 dated 25.4.2011 for such recruitment exercise under the respondent -Government. It is also submitted that reckoning of age is being made on 1.8.2013 which itself is in the nature of the benefit of two years to all candidates falling in the zone of consideration. Both the petitioners have crossed the upper age limit even by the said cut -off date and cannot be considered to be eligible under the terms and conditions of the advertisement, which are itself not under challenge. They have relied upon judgment rendered in the case of Dr. Neeraj Kumar and Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, WP(S) No. 4758 of 2015 dated 6.10.2015 in respect of Advertisement No. 2/2015 issued by the JPSC for appointment of Specialist Doctors. They have also relied upon judgment in the case of Shailesh Kumar vs. State of Jharkhand and Others, WP(S) No. 5867 of 2015 dated 7.10.2015 in respect of Advertisement No. 6/2015 issued by the JPSC for the purpose of direct recruitment or Assistant Engineers (Civil/Mechanical) in the Works Department under the State Government. It is submitted that identical grounds were raised and considered by this Court while declining interference.
(3.) I have considered the rival submissions of the parties in the light of material facts pleaded and also scrutinized the legal grounds urged for seeking age relaxation. It appears that the fixation of upper age limit is on the basis of uniform policy decision of the Department of Personnel Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha. In the matter of such recruitment, fixation of age limit are in the domain of executive policy and unless they are shown to be arbitrary or without any rational nexus to the object sought to be justified, no interference can be made in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The interregnum in the matter of recruitment by any employer or State instrumentality cannot be reason to relax the age in one or other recruitment exercise, which is governed by uniform policy decision of the State Government such as circular dated 25.4.2011. Reliance of the petitioners on the judgments rendered in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Sahay vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in : (2008) 3 JCR 267 : [ : 2008 (2) JLJR 543] (supra) and Subodh Kumar Jha vs. State of Jharkhand, reported in, (2005) 3 JLJR 622 (supra), however, are in a different context and would not give benefit to the case of the petitioners in the instant exercise. Therefore, no interference can be made in the instant writ petitions, which are, accordingly, dismissed.;