Age Relaxation Can't Be Claimed On The Basis Of Chief Minister's Tweet : Punjab & Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that candidates for public employment cannot claim relaxation in upper age limit as their right merely because the Chief Minister has tweeted in this regardA division bench of Justice Rajan Gupta and Justice Karamjit Singh held so while dismissing an appeal filed by petitioners seeking appointment to the post of Police Sub-Inspectors. On August 11,...
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that candidates for public employment cannot claim relaxation in upper age limit as their right merely because the Chief Minister has tweeted in this regard
- To direct the respondents to give age relaxation to them for applying against the posts of Police Sub-Inspectors advertised on 6.7.2021.
- To count their age as on 1.1.2021 as per the judgment of Supreme Court in "Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation" whereby the period starting from 15.3.2020 till further orders was directed to be considered as "Zero Period" in view of COVID-19 pandemic.
- To allow the petitioners (appellants herein) to provisionally appear in the examination scheduled for the aforesaid posts.
The counsel for the appellants submitted that 560 posts of Sub-Inspectors in the Punjab Police Department were advertised on 6.7.2021 and the last date for submission of on-line application forms was 27.7.2021. As per the said advertisement minimum prescribed age as on 1.1.2021 was 18 years and maximum prescribed age as on 1.1.2021 was 28 years, subject to certain relaxations.
However, the counsel for the appellants contended that on 12.7.2020, the Chief Minister of Punjab tweeted that an official announcement would be made soon to increase therecruitment age from 28 to 32 years for Sub-Inspectors in the Police Department . The counsel for the appellants also referred to the judgment of Delhi High Court in WP(C) No.8956 of 2020, Najma vs. Government of NCT ofDelhi decided on 22.7.2021 which had held that an assurance made by a Chief Minister in Press Conference was enforcealbe in law.
That apart, the counsel for the appellants also contended that as per proviso to Rule 12.6(c) of the Punjab Police Rules 1934 (in short 'the Rules'), the Director General of Police, Punjab has the power to relax the upper age limit under special circumstances. The counsel for the appellants further argued that in the year 2020, no posts were advertised due to lock down on account of spread of COVID-19 infection. The counsel for the appellants submitted that in the same terms, the appellants be also given benefit and they be permitted to apply for the posts of Sub-Inspectors by relaxing upper age limit, taking into consideration the fact that they would have been eligible if the said posts were advertised in the year 2020.
On the other hand, the learned State counsel supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and argued that the Court could not issue any direction regarding relaxation of upper age limit on the basis of tweet made by the Chief Minister. Age limit can be relaxed only by amending the Rule 12.6(c) of the Punjab Police Rules 1934. The State Counsel while summing up her arguments contended that the learned Single Judge dealt with the entire matter in right perspective and that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
The Division Bench after hearing the Counsels for both the sides ordered that they do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment and cited the following reasons:
"The appellants cannot seek relaxation in upper age limit as a matter of right just on the ground that Chief Minister, Punjab, had tweeted on July 12, 2020, that in the coming days maximum age for recruitment to the posts of sub-inspectors would be increased from 28 years to 32 years. The maximum age limit could be increased above 28 years only by amending the Rules as per the procedure prescribed under Law".
The Bench also observed that the judgment by Delhi High Court referred above by the appellants is of no assistance as the facts and circumstances of the case were totally different and distinguishable. The Chief Minister concerned in that case had made certain promises in a press conference that the government would pay rent on a tenant's behalf if he was unable to do so due to poverty
The Bench also observed that Upper age relaxation could not be given to the appellants, just because no such recruitment has been done since 2016 and as such they have lost chance to be selected as Sub-Inspectors.
While taking decision based on the facts of the present case, the Bench observed that admittedly proviso to Rule 12.6(c) provides that the Director General of Police may for the reasons to be recorded in writing, relax the upper age limit under special circumstances. However, the Court is not inclined to issue any such direction to the concerned authority to exercise its discretion to relax the upper age limit for the posts of Sub-Inspectors, the reasons being this Court cannot act as a rule making authority or legislate to increase the upper age prescribed under the rules
Accordingly, the present appeal was dismissed by the bench.
(Case Title : Samandeep Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others)