Petition for Age Relaxation in Assistant Professor Recruitment Dismissed by Court
In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Vijayendra Pal Singh Ajnariya, who sought judicial intervention for age relaxation in the recruitment process for the post of Assistant Professor (Sociology). The court, presided over by Shri Jai Kumar Pillai, J., emphasized the importance of adhering to the eligibility criteria specified in recruitment advertisements, stating that judicial intervention cannot be used to alter these conditions unless they are challenged for constitutionality.
The petitioner, a government servant aged 46 years belonging to the Scheduled Tribe category, contended that administrative delays in a previous recruitment process had unfairly rendered him over-age for the current recruitment, which had a revised age limit of 45 years. He argued that he had a legitimate expectation for the age limit to remain at 50 years, as was the case in previous advertisements.
However, the court maintained that each recruitment process is governed by its own terms and conditions, and the eligibility criteria must be strictly complied with as per the advertisement. The court noted that the petitioner did not challenge the validity of the revised age limit itself, which precluded the court from examining the policy decision's wisdom or desirability.
The respondents, represented by the state's counsel, argued that eligibility criteria are mandatory and cannot be relaxed by judicial directions. They asserted that the petitioner's failure to meet the age requirement under the new advertisement disqualified him from the recruitment process.
In its judgment, the court clarified that administrative delays do not create a vested right for eligibility under subsequent advertisements governed by different conditions. It further stated that granting individual age relaxation would disturb the uniform application of eligibility criteria and is impermissible in law.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the petition lacked merit and did not warrant the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that judicial intervention is unwarranted in the absence of a constitutional challenge to recruitment policies.
Bottom Line:
Eligibility criteria prescribed in recruitment advertisements must be strictly adhered to and cannot be relaxed by judicial intervention unless specifically provided under relevant rules or challenged for constitutionality.
Statutory provision(s): Articles 14, 16, and 226 of the Constitution of India
