Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vinod Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Others on 31 March, 2021CWP No.5672 of 2021 [1]
110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
…..
CWP No.5672 of 2021
Date of decision:March 31st, 2021
Vinod Kumar …..Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana and others …..Respondents
…..
(Heard through Video-Conferencing)
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
…..
Present: Mr. Sunil Kumar Nehra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Samarth Sagar, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for
respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr. Gobind Tanwar, Advocate for Mr. Kanwal Goyal,
Advocate for respondent No.3.
…..
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.
By way of the instant petition, the petitioner has sought the
indulgence of this Court for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari
quashing Advertisement No.3 of 2021 (Annexure P-4) to the extent of its not
providing the age relaxation to the aspirants, belonging to the Economically
Weaker Sections (here-in-after referred to as ‘the EWS’), for the posts,
except the post of the Deputy Superintendent of Police ( for short ‘the
DSP’), advertised thereby as well as the notification dated 03.02.2021
(Annexure P-9) so far as it does not provide the age relaxation to the
candidates of the said category for the other posts while granting this benefit
1 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2022 08:21:37 :::
CWP No.5672 of 2021 [2]
to them for the posts of the Police and Prisons Personnel and he has further
prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondents to grant relaxation of 5 years in the maximum age to the
candidates belonging to the EWS category for the other posts as well and
also directing respondent No.3-the Haryana Public Service Commission
(here-in-after referred to as ‘the HPSC’) to accept his application-form for
the posts advertised vide Annexure P-4 and to treat him as eligible for the
same and to allow him to participate in the recruitment process.
2. Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the averments as
canvassed by the petitioner in this petition, are that he belongs to the EWS
category as reflected in the Certificate dated 13.08.2020 (Annexure P-1).
Vide notification dated 25.02.2019 (Annexure P-2), the Government of
Haryana provided for the reservation for the persons of the EWS category in
the direct recruitment to civil posts and services which was, subsequently,
modified vide the notification dated 27.01.2020 (Annexure P-3). On
26.02.2021, the HPSC issued Advertisement No.3 of 2021 (Annexure P-4)
for filling-up the posts of Haryana Civil Service (Executive Branch) [here-
in-after referred to as ‘the HCS (EB)’] and Allied Services. Out of the total
48 posts advertised for the HCS (EB), 4 posts have been kept reserved for
the persons belonging to the EWS category of Haryana. The last date for
submission of the online applications is 02.04.2021.
3. The petitioner has, further, averred that as per the age limit
prescribed in the said Advertisement (Annexure P-4), the candidates (except
for the post of the DSP) should not be less than 18 years and not more than
2 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2022 08:21:37 :::
CWP No.5672 of 2021 [3]
42 years on or before Ist January, 2021. However, the relaxation of 5 years
in the maximum age limit has been provided to the candidates belonging to
Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, wives of military
personnel who are disabled while in the military service, widowed or legally
divorced woman provided she has not re-married, judicially separated
women residing separately for more than two years, unmarried women,
Ex-Servicemen, disabled persons covered under the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities Act, 2016 and to the persons, who have already worked or are
working in any Department, Board or Corporation of Haryana Government
and also in the High Court etc. but no such benefit has been extended to the
candidates of the EWS category for the posts advertised thereby except for
the post of DSP whereas this benefit had been extended to the candidates of
the said category while advertising the posts of Police Personnel vide
Annexure P-6. On the prescribed date, i.e 01.01.2021, his age was 42 years,
10 months and 30 days and thus, he is overage by 11 months approximately.
Earlier, the Economically Backward Persons in General Category (EBPGC)
were given the benefit of reservation but the same was withdrawn after the
said benefit had been granted to the persons belonging to Economically
Weaker Sections and now, vide the notification Annexure P-9, the age
relaxation has been provided to the candidates of the EWS category for the
posts of Police and Prison Departments only which shows that the said
benefit has, inadvertently, not been extended to the candidates of the said
category, applying for the other posts.
4. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed the affidavit of Mr. Vijayendra
3 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2022 08:21:37 :::
CWP No.5672 of 2021 [4]
Kumar, the Principal Secretary to the Government of Haryana, General
Administration Department, wherein he has deposed that there is no parity
between the various posts of the HCS (EB) and the post of DSP as these are
governed by separate sets of Service Rules, i.e. the Haryana Civil Service
(Executive Branch) Rules, 2008 (here-in-after referred to as ‘the Rules of
2008’) and Haryana Police Service Rules, 2002 (here-in-after referred to as
‘the Rules of 2002’) respectively and as per the Rules of 2002, the State
Government is empowered to provide age relaxation to the EWS candidates
for the post of DSP only whereas the same relaxation cannot be provided to
the candidates of the said category for the posts of HCS (EB) as there is no
similar provision in the Rules of 2008 empowering the Government to relax
the eligibility criteria in this regard.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned State
counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.3-HPSC in the present
petition, at the preliminary stage and have also perused the file thoroughly.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that vide
Annexure P-7, i.e. the copy of the Instructions issued by the Chief Secretary
to Government, Haryana on 05.02.2015, the relaxation of 5 years in upper
age limit had been extended to the candidates of EBPGC besides those
belonging to the Special Backward Classes Category and thereafter, vide
103rd Amendment in the Constitution of India as made on 12.01.2019
(Annexure P-10), Clause 6 has been inserted in Article 16 whereby the State
has been empowered to make provision for the reservation of posts for the
persons belonging to the EWS category and in pursuance thereof, the
4 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2022 08:21:37 :::
CWP No.5672 of 2021 [5]
Government of Haryana issued the letter/instructions dated 05.06.2019
withdrawing the reservation as granted earlier to the EBPGC and he has
contended that now, the State Government has issued the impugned
notification Annexure P-9 extending the benefit of relaxation in the upper
age limit to the candidates of EWS category only qua the posts of Police and
Prisons Personnel while denying the same for the posts of the rest of the
Departments/services despite the fact that such benefit had been extended to
the candidates of EBPGC earlier and the HPSC has notified the impugned
Advertisement Annexure P-4 in consonance with Annexure P-9 whereas
vide Annexure P-6, i.e. the copy of the Advertisement No.4 of 2020 notified
by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission on 30.12.2020 for inviting
applications for direct recruitment to the posts of Group ‘C’ in the Police
Department, the candidates of EWS category have been granted relaxation
of 5 years in the upper age limit and hence, the impugned Notification
Annexure P-9 and also the Advertisement Annexure P-4, being arbitrary as
well as discriminatory, are liable to be quashed to the extent so far as the
same deprive the persons of the EWS category, aspiring for their selection
for the other Government jobs except Police and Prison Personnel, of the
said benefit. To buttress his contentions, he has placed reliance upon
Jayrajbhai Jayatibhai Patel Vs. Anilbhai Jayantibhai Patel and others,
2006 (8) SCC 200.
7. However, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for
the HPSC have argued that the recruitment and service of the members of
the HCS (EB) and the Police Department are governed by separate sets of
5 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2022 08:21:37 :::
CWP No.5672 of 2021 [6]
the Rules and the different upper age limits for entry into the said services
have been prescribed therein keeping in view the peculiar nature of the
duties required to be performed by them and therefore, the said benefit of
relaxation in the upper age limit cannot be claimed by the candidates of the
EWS category for the posts, other than the posts of the Police and Prisons
Departments, as a matter of right on the basis of parity.
8. Undisputedly, the recruitment and conditions of the service of
the persons appointed to the HCS(EB) are governed by the Rules of 2008
wherein Rule 12 (2) (a) provides that:-
“(2) No person shall be allowed to sit in the
examination-
(a) who is less than twenty-one years or more
than forty years of age or such age limit as may from time
to time be fixed by Government for entry into service, on
or before the first day of January next preceding the last
date appointed by the Commission for the submission of
applications:
Provided that the age limit for a person
belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or
Backward Classes shall be such as may be fixed by
Government from time to time.”
A bare reading of the above-mentioned Rule makes it crystal
clear that the age limit for entry into the said service can be modified or
altered by the State Government from time to time. Vide the impugned
6 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2022 08:21:37 :::
CWP No.5672 of 2021 [7]
instructions/notification Annexure P-9, the upper age limit for the posts of
all Groups A, B, C and D has been fixed as 42 years while providing age
relaxation for the categories enumerated in para 2 (ii) therein which shows
that the relaxation of 5 years in upper age limit is available to the candidates
of the EWS category for the posts of Police and Prisons Personnel only and
as specifically mentioned in the beginning para therein, these instructions
have been issued in supersession of all the instructions already issued by the
Government regarding fixation of the lower and upper age limit for entry
into the Government Service or to compete for regular recruitment and also
regarding the grant of relaxation in the upper age limit under various
circumstances, as listed at Annexure-A and the earlier instructions contained
in Annexure P-7 extending the benefit of 5 years’ relaxation in the upper age
limit to EBPGC Category find mention at Sr. No.28 in the said Annexure-A
meaning thereby that the afore-discussed instructions, as circulated vide
Annexure P-7, have been ordered by the State Government to be superseded
after taking a conscious decision in respect thereof.
9. Moreover, the Apex Court has recently made the following
observations in para 14 of the judgment handed down in Dr. Thingujam
Achouba Singh and others Vs. Dr. H. Nabachandra Singh and others etc.,
2020(6) Scale 292 :-
“….So far as relaxation of upper age limit, as
sought by the petitioners in one of the writ petitions is
concerned, High Court has directed the competent authority
and Executive Council of the Society to consider for
7 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2022 08:21:37 :::
CWP No.5672 of 2021 [8]
providing such relaxation clause. We fail to understand as
to how such direction can be given by the High Court for
providing a relaxation which is not notified in the
advertisement. While it is open for the employer to notify
such criteria for relaxation when sufficient candidates are
not available, at the same time nobody can claim such
relaxation as a matter of right. The eligibility criteria will
be within the domain of the employer and no candidate can
seek as a matter of right, to provide relaxation clause.”
The afore-cited observations squarely cover and are, therefore,
fully applicable to the case of the petitioner and in the light of the same, it is
quite explicit that this Court should not direct the respondents for providing
age relaxation to the candidates of EWS Category for the posts for which it
is not so notified in the impugned Advertisement (Annexure P-4).
10. The observations as made by Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Jayrajbhai Jayantibhai Patel (supra) do not further the cause of the
petitioner to substantiate his claim in the present petition as the facts and
circumstances of the matter in hand are apparently distinct and different
from those of the referred above. In the afore-mentioned case, the matter
related to the dispute regarding the election of the President of Anand
Municipality because at the time of convening the meeting for the said
purpose, two of the participant Councillors had been arrested by the police
and therefore, it was observed that the detention of the said Councillors a
few minutes before the election meeting was a relevant factor which ought
8 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2022 08:21:37 :::
CWP No.5672 of 2021 [9]
to have been taken into consideration by the Presiding Officer to decide
whether to continue with the election or to postpone it and the High Court
had not committed any error of law and/or jurisdiction in setting aside the
election of the appellant as the President of the said Municipality whereas, it
is not so in the present case.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the
depositions, as made by the Principal Secretary to Government, Haryana in
his said affidavit, to the effect that there is a special provision, i.e. Rule 20 in
the Rules of 2002, which provides for the grant of age relaxation to the EWS
candidates in the matter of recruitment to the post of the DSP only whereas
no such relaxation can be provided to the EWS candidates for the posts of
HCS(EB) as there is no similar provision in the Rules of 2008 empowering
the State Government to relax the eligibility criteria in this regard and he has
contended that as per the proviso appended to Rule 12(2)(a) of the Rules of
2008, the State Government may fix the age limit for a person belonging to
the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Backward Classes but however,
vide the impugned instructions/Notification Annexure P-9, the candidates of
several other categories, as mentioned at Serial No. (iii) to (x) in para 2(ii)
therein, have been extended the benefit of 5 years’ relaxation in the upper
age limit and it being so, the respondent-State is estopped from taking the
plea that the said benefit cannot be extended to the persons, belonging to the
EWS category, aspiring to apply for the posts other than those of Police and
Prisons Personnel.
12. Again, this contention does not hold much water because Rule
9 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2022 08:21:37 :::
CWP No.5672 of 2021 [10]
34 in the Rules of 2008 reads as under:-
“34. In respect of all matters not specifically
mentioned in these rules, the member of the Service shall be
governed by such general rules as may have been or may
hereafter be framed by Government under the provisions of the
Constitution of India in this respect.”
A bare reading of the above-said Rule makes it explicit that in
case, the said Rules are silent on any particular point, the member of the
service is to be governed by the general rules as might have been or might
thereafter be framed by the Government under the provisions of the
Constitution of India in this respect. The Rules of 2008 are silent on the
point of extending the benefit of age relaxation to the persons belonging to
the categories other than those as mentioned in the said proviso to Rule
12(2)(a).
13. Undisputedly, Haryana Civil Services (General) Rules, 2016
(hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2016”) have been framed in exercise
of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of
India and Rule 22 in these Rules prescribes the age for entry into the
Government Service and Clauses (b), (c) and (d) thereof provide for the
relaxation in upper age limit of the persons belonging to the categories as
specified therein and are as under:-
“(b) The upper age limit of forty two years shall be
extended by five years in the case of person belonging to one or
more of the following:-
10 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2022 08:21:37 :::
CWP No.5672 of 2021 [11]
(i) Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes;
(ii) Backward Classes;
(iii) Wives of military personnel who are disabled while in
military service;
(iv) Widowed or legally divorced women;
(v) Judicially separated women residing separately for
more than two years from the date as prescribed for the
purpose of age for candidates of other categories.
(c) The upper age limit prescribed for appointment to any
service or post shall relaxed in favour of ex-serviceman to the
extent of his military service added by three years provided-
(i) he has rendered continuous military service for a
period of not less than six months before his release; and
(ii) he was released otherwise than by way of dismissal or
discharge on account of misconduct or inefficiency.
(d) The differently abled persons, viz, deaf, dumb, blind and
orthopaedically handicapped, shall be given age concession of
ten years over and above the upper age limit prescribed for
direct recruitment to the post against which they can suitably be
employed.
In Annexure P-9, the categories as mentioned in the above-cited
Clauses (b), (c) and (d) of Rule 22 have been included and para 3 therein
also provides as under:-
11 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2022 08:21:37 :::
CWP No.5672 of 2021 [12]
“3. Until necessary amendment is made in the
rules by the Finance Department, these instructions shall be
applicable with immediate effect instead of the provision
which exists in Rule 22 of the Haryana Civil Services
(General) Rules, 2016.”
The above-discussed Rules of 2016 as well as the contents of
para 3 in Annexure P-9 sufficiently explain the inclusion of several other
categories, besides the categories of SC/ST and BC as mentioned in the
proviso appended to Rule 12(2)(a) of the Rules of 2008 and also of those
categories which have not yet been included in the existing Rule 22 of the
Rules of 2016, in the impugned instructions/notification Annexure P-9, for
granting the benefit of the relaxation in upper age limit for entry into the
Government service .
14. As regards the plea of estoppel, it has been held by the Apex
Court in State of Rajasthan and another vs. Surendra Mohnod and
others, 2014(14) SCC 77 that “there can be no estoppel against law”.
Similar observations were made by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in
Jalandhar Improvement Trust vs. Sampuran Singh, AIR 1999 SC 1347.
In view of these observations, it can be safely held that the plea of estoppel
cannot be resorted to in respect of the legal provisions/rules/regulations
framed by the Competent Authorities in exercise of the powers conferred
upon them for the said purpose. Hence, the afore-referred explanation, as
put-forth by the Principal Secretary to the Government of Haryana in his
said affidavit, does not suffice at all to brush aside the entire above-
12 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2022 08:21:37 :::
CWP No.5672 of 2021 [13]
discussed provisions made in the relevant Rules or to throw the same to the
winds.
15. Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to
Annexure P-12, i.e. the copy of Advertisement No.10 of 2019-20 notified by
the Gujarat Public Service Commission for inviting applications for the
various posts of Gujarat Administrative Services and has contended that the
benefit of relaxation of 5 years in the upper age limit has been extended
therein to the candidates of EWS category besides the other categories and
therefore, the petitioner should also be allowed to apply for and participate
in the selection process to be conducted for the posts advertised vide
Annexure P-4.
16. Again, this contention is not tenable at all because so far as the
reservation of the posts for the persons belonging to EWS category for the
purpose of their appointment, as envisaged under 103rd Amendment of
Constitution of India, is concerned, neither the impugned Advertisement
Annexure P-4 nor Notification Annexure P-9 violate the same in any manner
by depriving the candidates of the EWS category from their said right. As
regards the relaxation in the prescribed upper age limit, the same can, by no
stretch of imagination, be taken to be a fundamental right of any citizen and
rather, it squarely falls within the four corners of the term “concession” and
the State/Government, being the employer, is well within its rights to take
policy decision, in its own wisdom and prudence, to extend or withdraw any
concession granted to a particular class or category of persons. It being so,
Annexure P-12 is of no avail to the petitioner to seek the benefit as claimed
13 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2022 08:21:37 :::
CWP No.5672 of 2021 [14]
in this petition.
17. As a sequel to the fore-going discussion, it follows that the
instant petition is sans any merit and hence, it deserves dismissal.
Resultantly, the same stands dismissed accordingly.
March 31st, 2021. (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
Parmar/sandeep/neetu JUDGE
NOTE:
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether Reportable? Yes/No
14 of 14
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2022 08:21:37 :::
Comments