Allahabad High Court
Dr. Naved Iqbal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 April, 2022
Bench: Manju Rani Chauhan
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?
Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 493 of 2022
Petitioner :- Dr. Naved Iqbal
Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Maneesh Kumar,Harsh Vijay,Neeraj Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Fuzail Ahmad Ansari,M.N. Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.
Heard Mr. Maneesh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Mr. Fuzail Ahmad Ansari, learned counsel for the respondent-Commission.
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-
"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents authorities to accord the petitioner an opportunity to participate in the selection process for vacancy of 962 posts of Medical Officer (Ayurvedic and Unani) Community Health issued by Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission vide advertisement no.04/2021-22 dated 23.11.2021.
(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authority no.2 to decide the representation dated 13.12.2021 of petitioner expeditiously for considering the relaxation in his maximum age in applying for vacancy of 962 posts of Medical Officer Community Health (Ayurvedic and Unani) issued by Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission vide advertisement no.04/2021-22 dated 23.11.2021."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is working as Ayush Doctor (Unani) since 30.09.2013 as contractual employee pursuant to the appointment by the Chief Medical Officer, Bijnor vide order dated 30.09.2013. He further submits that the petitioner is working till date on the said post on contractual basis. Pursuant to the advertisement issued from the Office of respondent no.2 with respect to 962 posts of Medical Officer Community Health (Ayurvedic & Unani), he applied for the aforesaid post but his application form was not accepted as he was over age. Therefore, the petitioner moved an application/representation before the respondent-Commission requesting for relaxation of age, but no decision has been taken till date. Hence, this writ petition has been filed.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-Commission submits that the power to relax the age of any examination is a policy matter, which falls under the domain of the State Government, therefore, relief as prayed cannot be granted to the petitioner. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dr. R.K. Goyal vs. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in (1996) 11 SCC 658.
Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the respondent-Commission.
It is settled law that the policy decision has to be taken by the State Government for changing the eligibility criteria regarding academic qualification, age relaxation etc. for any posts, which cannot be judicially reviewed by this Court. The Apex Court in the case of Vasavi Engineering College Parents Association ..... Vs State of Telangana & Ors. reported in (2019) 7 SCC 172, has held that the Court can neither act an appellate authority nor can usurp jurisdiction of decision maker and make the decision itself. Until and unless the same is arbitrary or in violation of any provision of law or is infringing the fundamental rights of any person.
In Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.), Sindri vs Union of India, reported in (1981) 1 SCC 568, it was also observed:-
"35. ?.We certainly agree that judicial interference with the administration cannot be meticulous in our Montesquien system of separation of powers. The court cannot usurp or abdicate, and the parameters of judicial review must be clearly defined and never exceeded. If the directorate of a government company has acted fairly, even if it has faltered in its wisdom, the court cannot, as a super auditor, take the Board of Directors to task. This function is limited to testing whether the administrative action has been fair and free from the taint of unreasonableness and has substantially complied with the norms of procedure set for it by rules of public administration."
Reference may also be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Directorate of Film Festivals & Ors. Vs. Gaurav Ashwin Jain & Ors., reported in (2007) 4 SCC 737, where the Apex Court held as follows:-
"16. The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy nor are courts Advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate."
The selection and appointment to any post should be made strictly in accordance with terms of the advertisement and the recruitment rules as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of Yogesh Kumar And Others vs Government Of NTC Delhi reported in (2003) 3 SCC 548.
In such circumstances, the Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter regarding age relaxation as the same is policy decision, which has been taken by the State Government, therefore, relief as prayed by the petitioner cannot be granted.
This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.4.2022
Jitendra/-
