Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Age Limit For Assistant District Attorney Post

The Himachal Pradesh High Court on Wednesday dismissed a set of petitions challenging the age limit for direct recruitment to the posts of Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs) in the state.

“The State Government is within its powers to carve out exceptions for a particular category of post in so far as the prescription of age limit by direct recruitment to such post is concerned. As noticed above, the State Government has already carved exceptions for Himachal Administrative Services, Himachal Police Services and Himachal Judicial Services”, Justices Tarlok Singh Chauhan & Satyen Vaidya observed.

The petitioners, all law graduates and practicing advocates, who aspired to be appointed as Assistant District Attorneys in the Prosecution Department of the state were aggrieved by an advertisement issued in 2021 by State 3 which specified an age limit of 35 years and below for the recruitment of 25 Assistant District Attorneys on a contract basis. Since all the petitioners had crossed the age of 35 years by January 1, 2021, rendering them ineligible, they had thrown a challenge to the same said notification.

In their plea, the petitioners contended that Clause-6 of the Himachal Pradesh Prosecution Department, Assistant District Attorney, Class-I (Gazetted), Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 2017 was ultra vires the Constitution of India and argued that the age limit for direct recruitment to Class-I posts, except for Himachal Administrative Services, Himachal Judicial Services, and Himachal Police Services, was previously fixed at 45 years and below, according to a decision made by the Government of Himachal Pradesh in 1983. The petitioners claimed that the separate age classification for Assistant District Attorneys lacks a reasonable nexus to the objective sought, rendering it arbitrary and discriminatory.

Furthermore, the petitioners sought recourse through Rule 18 of the 2017 Rules, which granted the state government the authority to relax the rules in appropriate cases. They argued that the extraordinary circumstances created by the COVID-19 pandemic prevented them from participating in the selection process and had it not been for the pandemic, the selection process could have commenced in 2020, making them eligible to apply.

Respondents, however, challenged petitioners' claims, asserting no requisition for filling Assistant District Attorney posts between September 2019 and December 2020. They defended the 2017 Rules, including Clause-6, as intra vires. Citing a 2001 letter, respondents stated that the age limit for Class-II posts was 45 years and below.

They further stated that the post of Assistant District Attorney was classified as Class-II (Gazetted) at that time and that the decision to retain the age limit of 35 years for direct recruitment to the posts of Assistant District Attorneys was duly approved by the Cabinet in 2003.

Adjudicating upon the matter the bench observed that the state government was within its powers to prescribe a lower age limit for the posts of ADAs and maintained that there was no violation of the Rules of Business of the Government of Himachal Pradesh. The court noted that the matter of prescribing the age limit for the posts of ADAs had been placed before the Council of Ministers, and that the Council of Ministers had approved the age limit of 35 years.

Elaborating further on the subject the bench noted that the Council of Ministers had approved the 2003 rules for Recruitment and Promotion (R&P) of Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs) and a memorandum proposing changes was also considered, which also included a proposal to set the age for direct recruitment to ADAs as '45 years and below'. However, the Council approved all other amendments except the proposed change in the age limit and as a result, the notified 2003 Rules set the age for direct recruitment to ADAs at '35 years and below', the bench said.

The court also observed that the state government had already made exceptions for specific posts, such as Himachal Administrative Services, Himachal Police Services, and Himachal Judicial Services, regarding the age limit for direct recruitment. The court acknowledged that the state government has the authority to create exceptions for certain posts when it comes to setting the age limit for direct recruitment.

Dealing with the argument of the petitioners that they had been unable to participate in the selection process for the posts of ADAs due to the pandemic the court observed that the petitioners have not been able to make out a case of hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Observing that there was no evidence to support this claim the court underscored that even if the petitioners had been unable to participate in the selection process due to the pandemic, they would not be entitled to relaxation in the age limit.

Even otherwise such relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right and hence, the mandamus as sought by petitioners cannot be issued, the court said while dismissing the petitions.

Case Title: Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (HP) 41

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment