Patna High Court: The writ petition was filed for issuance of an order/direction or a writ of certiorari for quashing paragraph 3 of Advertisement No. BSJS/1/2023 dated 11-12-2023 published for appointment to the post of District Judge (Entry Level) to the extent to which the cut-off date for determination of maximum age limit was fixed at 01-01-2023. The Division Bench of K. Vinod Chandran, CJ., and Rajiv Roy, J.*, reiterated that delay in issuance of advertisement by itself would not create any right or legitimate expectation in favour of a person to seek relaxation in the upper age limit as prescribed for a preliminary examination.
Background
Petitioner had a LLB degree and was enrolled with the Bihar State Bar Council since 2001. On 08-12-2021, an advertisement for the examination for the appointment of District Judge (Entry Level) (Advertisement No. BSJS/1/2021) was published. He appeared in the examination as a candidate but failed to finally clear the same. Subsequently, petitioner’s case was that there was no advertisement in 2022 and now the fresh advertisement had come up vide Advertisement No. BSJS/1/2023 for the District Judge (Entry Level) direct from Bar Examination, 2023. Further, as in 2021, this year also clause 3 of the advertisement had put a bar on the candidate who had not completed 35 years of age and/or had already completed the age of 50 years as on 01-01-2023.
Petitioner was aggrieved by the said clause, and he submitted that his date of birth being 05-12-1972, he would have been eligible for the 2022 examination, but as per the present advertisement, he stands debarred. Thus, he submitted that as there was no advertisement for the year 2022, the determination of age be shifted from 01-01-2023 to 01-01-2022.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that the fixation of age limit and the other qualifications that were prescribed for the post lies with the appointing authority unless a case was made out that the same was contrary to a specific provision of law and thus, the Court could not interfere in such matters.
The Court noted that petitioner availed the opportunity in 2021 though he could not make it finally and therefore, he could not state that he never got any chance to appear in the examination for the post of District Judge (Entry Level). Further, petitioner failed to show that the advertisement was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. It was a policy decision and the criteria prescribed by it, whether it was relating to age and/or the essential qualification, could not be interfered with.
The Court relied on Ami Lal Bhatt (Dr) v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 6 SCC 614 and Sasidhar Reddy Sura v. State of A.P., (2014) 2 SCC 158, wherein it was held that “delay in issuance of advertisement by itself would not create any right or legitimate expectation in favour of a person to seek relaxation in the upper age limit as prescribed for a preliminary examination”.
The Court further relied on Deo Narayan Prasad v. High Court of Patna, CWJC No. 2854 of 2019, wherein it was held that “a right to seek employment is not a fundamental right. The question of selection and appointment or any deprivation arises only after a person is found to be eligible and entitled to seek employment under the relevant rules governed by the terms and conditions of an advertisement. The delay in the issuance of advertisement by itself will not in any way create a right or even a legitimate expectation in favour of a person so as to seek a direction for relaxation in the upper age limit as prescribed for appearing in an examination. This will clearly amount to violating the rules and the terms and conditions of the advertisement.”.
The Court held that petitioner had not shown any arbitrariness in respondents’ action or any violation of fundamental or legal rights. Thus, the Court dismissed the petition being devoid of any merit.
[Shahjahan v. High Court of Patna, 2024 SCC OnLine Pat 157, decided on 12-01-2024]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Rajiv Roy
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Kumar Kaushik, Advocate
For the Respondent: Piyush Lall, Advocate
Buy Constitution of India HERE
