Mrs. Mayuri vs Hon'Ble High Court Of Judicature ...
2010 Latest Caselaw 245 Bom

                                                 1
                                                                                        wp-5380-10.sxw

     mgn




                                                                                    
             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY




                                                            
                       APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 5380 OF 2010




                                                           
    Mrs. Mayuri w/o Harshal Deshmukh                        .. Petitioner

                Vs.




                                                 
    1. Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Bombay & Anr. Respondents
                                  
    Ms. Pooja Thorat for petitioner.
                                 
    Mr. M. S. Karnik for respondent no.1.

    Ms. S. S. Bhende, AGP for respondent no.2.
              


                                       CORAM:    B. H. MARLAPALLE &
           



                                                 U. D. SALVI, JJ.

                            RESERVED ON:        NOVEMBER 26, 2010





                       PRONOUNCED ON:           DECEMBER 3, 2010





    JUDGMENT (PER B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.):

1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

questions the administrative decision of the High Court, rejecting the

wp-5380-10.sxw

petitioner's application for the post of Judge - Family Court, on the ground

that she was less than 35 years of age as on 27/9/2009. By an interim order

dated 23/4/2010 respondent nos.1 and 2 were directed to permit the petitioner

to participate in the process of selection for the post of Judge - Family Court

scheduled to commence from 2/5/2010 and it was further directed that the

result of selection process of the petitioner should not be declared without

obtaining permission of the court. It was further clarified that the grant of

permission to participate in the selection process was provisional and shall

not create any equity in favour of the petitioner and shall be subject to the

final result in the petition. However, it appears that the Selection Committee

by its decision dated 30/4/2010 postponed the selection process. It appears,

subsequently, this petition as well as other petitions came to be transferred to

the Principal Bench and re-registered. Civil Application No. 2741 of 2010

for amendment was allowed by us on 22/10/2010 and by a further order

passed on the same day, we had directed the High Court administration to

place the issues raised by the petitioner before the Selection Committee. The

Registrar (Legal & Research) has filed an affidavit and pointed out that the

Selection Committee decided not to reduce the minimum age limit prescribed

for the post.

wp-5380-10.sxw

2. On 27/9/2009, an advertisement was released by the High Court

administration inviting applications to fill in 15 posts (existing) and 6 posts

(probable) of Judge - Family Court. The eligibility of the candidates

applying for the said post was set out in Clause 2 of the said advertisement

and as per the same it was stipulated that as on 27/9/2009 the applicant must

not be less than 35 years of age. The petitioner is born on 10/10/1974 and

thus she completed the age of 35 years on 9/10/2009. She submitted her

application on 15/10/2009 i.e. on completing the age of 35 years for the post

of Judge - Family Court and enclosed all the relevant documents regarding

her qualifications, age and experience etc. The last date for submission of the

application, as per the advertisement, was 30/10/2009. As per the petitioner

on 12th April, 2010 the High Court published the list of the candidates called

for written test and in the said list her name did not find place. Within two

days thereafter the High Court published the list of candidates whose

applications were rejected and her name was included in the said list which

indicated that her application was rejected for reason No.12 in the

advertisement i.e. "age of 35 years is not completed" and, therefore, she

moved this petition before the Nagpur Bench.

3. The petitioner contends that though she was aware of the minimum

wp-5380-10.sxw

age requirement of 35 years as on 27th September, 2009 and she was short of

13 days to complete the age of 35 years as on 27th September, 2009, she

submitted the application on 15th October, 2009 on attaining the same

minimum age, under the legitimate expectations that the respondent No.1

would consider her application form favourably and on technical grounds her

application would not be rejected. She further submits that having fulfilled

all other eligibility requirements, she reasonably expected that the High

Court would take a liberal approach in respect of her age and treat her as

eligible keeping in mind that she submitted her application form only after

she had crossed the age of 35 years. As per the petitioner there was no basis

to fix the cut-off date as 27th September, 2009 for completion of 35 years of

age and it was not permissible to insist that she must have completed the said

age, and such a decision by the High Court is arbitrary and does not find

support from the relevant Rules i.e. the Judges of the Family Court

(Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules, 1990 (for short the Recruitment

and Service Rules). The said Rules have been framed by the Governor of

Maharashtra in exercise of his powers conferred under Article 309 of the

Constitution of India and Section 23 read with Section 4 of the Family Courts

Act, 1984 in consultation with the High Court and the condition of minimum

wp-5380-10.sxw

age of 35 years is flexible in the said Rules and, therefore, it was not

permissible for the High Court to incorporate in the advertisement that the

candidate must not be less than 35 years of age as on 27th September, 2009.

The petitioner also contends that under the Recruitment & Service Rules a

candidate applying should not be ordinarily less than 35 years of age and the

word "ordinarily" itself indicated that the condition of minimum age will not

be rigidly followed and that too in the case of women candidates who are

required to be given preference in the selection process under Rule 4(b) of

the said Rules. The Family Courts Act does not prescribe the lower age limit

for appointment of a person to the post of Judge, Family Court, and the

Recruitment & Service Rules do not specify the date on which the applying

candidate ought to have completed the age of 35 years. In such a situation

the date to complete the minimum age requirement must be the last date on

which the applications were required to be submitted. She also claims that if

the scheme of the Family Courts Act is read in its right spirit, the requirement

of minimum age ought to be considered on the date of actual appointment to

the post of Judge, Family Court. Ms. Thorat, the learned Counsel for the

petitioner further submitted that even as on the date fixed in the

advertisement i.e. 27th September, 2009 the petitioner fell short of 13 days

wp-5380-10.sxw

and the word used "ordinarily" in the Recruitment & Service Rules must be

interpreted with flexibility so as to hold the petitioner eligible, as on the date

she submitted the application, she had attained the age of 35 years and the

decision of the High Court suffers from hyper technicality and does not take

into consideration the true meaning and spirit of the word "ordinarily" used

in the Recruitment and Service Rules. She also urged that the requirement

of minimum age in the advertisement for completion of minimum age was in

conflict with the very same requirement under the Rules and the provisions

of the Rules must prevail over the advertisement. In support of these

contentions Ms. Thorat relied on the following two decisions of the Supreme

Court:-

1.Ashok Kumar Sharma vs. Chander Shekhar & Anr., (1997) 4

SCC 18.

2. Shankar K. Mandal & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors, (2003) 9

SCC 519.

4. In the affidavit in reply filed by the Registrar (Legal and Research) on

behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2, while opposing the petition, it has

been submitted that the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ashok

wp-5380-10.sxw

Sharma's case (supra) does not support the case of the petitioner and on the

contrary it supports the proposition that when the advertisement stated that

the candidate was required to have completed 35 years of age on the date of

its publication, the said condition cannot be held to be illegal or arbitrary and

a person who acquires the prescribed qualifications on the date so fixed in the

advertisement will only be eligible candidate. Though under the Recruitment

and Service Rules the candidates to be appointed by nomination are required

to be "ordinarily" not less than 35 years of age, the minimum age limit would

be required to be fixed with reference to a particular date and, therefore, in

the advertisement the date of its publication was fixed as the relevant date to

decide the eligibility of the candidates and the same does not suffer from any

illegality or arbitrariness. In the additional affidavit in reply it has been

submitted that the Selection Committee met on 22nd November, 2010 and

decided as under:-

"At the time of finalisation of the terms and conditions of the

Advertisement dated 27.09.2009, it was decided that for being

eligible for the post of Judge, Family Court, a candidate must not

be less than 35 years of age on the date of advertisement.

Though the word "ordinarily" may mean normally and not

wp-5380-10.sxw

necessarily, after the terms and conditions of the advertisement

are finalised, it would not be permissible to reduce the minimum

age limit. If such a course is adopted at this stage, it would

amount to opening a floodgate for a large number of persons to

apply for the post. In that event, practically, the selection

process will have to be started afresh by calling applications

from all the eligible persons below the age of 35 years, who were

earlier kept out of consideration for the post.

It may be noted that there are more than 750 candidates,

who are found eligible as against 15 vacancies for the post.

Thus, the number of eligible candidates is disproportionately

high and it would be necessary to shortlist the candidates.

Moreover, for the post of Judge, Family Court, a person must be

quite matured so that with his experience of life, he would be

able to decide the controversy between the parties effectively. In

this view of the matter also, it is decided not to reduce the

minimum age limit that has been prescribed for the post.

In the circumstances, it was decided not to reconsider the earlier

decision to fix the minimum age limit as 35 years. Therefore, in

wp-5380-10.sxw

view of the decision in the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma and

others V/s.Chander Shekhar and another (1997) 4 SCC 18, the

candidates at Serial number 1 to 6 mentioned in the submission

note who had not completed the age of 35 years on the date of

advertisement, cannot be held eligible."

5. From the record placed before us by the High Court administration we

have noticed that under Reason No.12 of the advertisement (minimum age

requirement) in all six candidates were found to be ineligible and they are as

under:-

                                      
    Sr.No. Name of the candidate                 Date of Birth Age on the date of advertisement
                                                               Year       Month                 Days
    1.        Smt.Mayuri Harshal Deshmukh        10.10.1974    34           11                  17
                 

    2.        Smt. Charusheela Sachin Paunikar   02.10.1974    34           11                  25

              



    4.        Smt. Anushka Amol Shreshtha        16.11.1974    34           10                  11
    5.        Smt.Sonaly Krishanrao Joshi        07.08.1975    34           1                   20
    6.        Smt. Kranti Tejrao Hiwrale         15.08.1977    32           1                   12

5. It is pertinent to note that the candidates at Serial Nos.4 to 6 in the above

table did not complete the minimum age of 35 years even on the last date fixed to

receive the applications i.e. on 30th October, 2009 and, therefore, they were

rightly held to be ineligible. So far as the candidates at Serial Nos. 1 to 3 which

include the present petitioner, are concerned, the petitioner fell short of 13 days,

wp-5380-10.sxw

Smt. Charusheela Sachin Paunikar fell short of 5 days and Ms. Naaz Ruheela fell

short of 11 days so as to complete the minimum age of 35 years as on 27th

September, 2009. Hence the moot question before us is whether it would be legal,

justifiable and in consonance with the spirit of the Recruitment and Service Rules

to disqualify all these three candidates when all of them had completed the

minimum age requirement either on the date they submitted the applications or

within 5 to 13 days from 27th September, 2009, but much before the last date

fixed to receive the applications i.e. 30th October, 2009.

6. It is clear from the additional affidavit filed by the Registrar (Legal &

Research) that there are already 750 candidates who are found to be eligible to

undergo the selection process. The addition of these candidates is not going to

make such an impact as to hold that the number of eligible candidates is

disproportionately high or it would cause inconvenience to administer the

screening/written test. It is also obvious that there are no other candidates who had

applied and were disqualified for the reason of being underage. Even otherwise

the High Court has reserved its option to administer a screening test, under clause

20 of the advertisement. It was contended by Mr. Karnik, the learned Counsel

appearing for the respondent Nos.1 & 2 that there may be many more candidates

wp-5380-10.sxw

who did not submit the applications keeping in mind that as on 27-9-2009 they did

not complete the age of 35 years though they would have completed the said age

on 30th October, 2009 or on an earlier date. This is a hyper technical proposition as

per the learned Counsel for the petitioner. She submitted that knowing full well

that the minimum age of 35 years was to be considered with reference to 27th

September, 2009, the above mentioned six candidates submitted their

applications hoping that the High Court will be flexible in considering the

minimum age requirement and would not adopt a rigid approach, more so when

the Recruitment and Service Rules used the word "ordinarily" in regard to the age

requirement of 35 years and as per her this is a legitimate expectation and if some

others have not submitted the applications despite being aware of the Recruitment

& Service Rules it can be reasonably inferred that they were not interested to

apply.

The fact remains that by an interim order the petitioner was permitted to

participate in the process of selection commencing from 2nd May, 2010 and such a

benefit ought to be available to the similarly placed candidates i.e. other two

applicants mentioned hereinabove namely (1) Smt. Charusheela Sachin Paunikar

and Ms. Naaz Ruheela though they have not filed petitions before this Court.

wp-5380-10.sxw

7. Let us reproduce Clause 2 of the advertisement published on 27th

September, 2009 and Rule 3 of the Recruitment & Service Rules, as under:-

a) Advertisement Clause.

"2) A candidate must, on the date of advertisement, (I) not be less than 35

years of age;

(II)(a) have held a Judicial Office in India or the Office of a Member of a

Tribunal or any post under the Union or a State requiring special

knowledge of law, at least for seven years;

OR

(b) have practised as an Advocate in the High Court or in any two or

more such Courts in succession, at least for seven years;

OR

(c ) (i) be a post Graduate in Law with specialisation in Personal Law;

OR

(ii) have a post Graduate degree in social sciences such as Master of Social

Welfare Sociology, Psychology/Philosophy with a degree in law;

AND

(iii) have at least seven years' experience in the field work/research or of

teaching in a Government Department or in a College/University or a

wp-5380-10.sxw

comparable academic

(iv) have seven years' experience in the examination and/or application of

Central/State Laws relating to marriage, divorce, maintenance,

guardianship, adoption and other family disputes.

b) Recruitment & Service Rules:

Rule 3 of the Recruitment & Service Rules reads as under:-

"3. Appointment to the post of a Judge shall be made either;

(A) by transfer of a person holding a post of District Judge, as defined

under articles 236(a) of the Constitution of India;

Provided that, a person holding the post other than a post of a District

Judge, Judge of the City Civil Court, Bombay, Joint District Judge, Chief

Judge, Small Causes Court, Bombay or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall

have standing of not less than five years:

Provided further that, a person holding the post other than a post of District

Judge, Judge of the City Civil Court, Joint District Judge, Chief Judges,

Small Causes Court, Bombay or Chief Metropolitan Magistrate shall not

ordinarily be appointed as a Judge of the Family Court, Bombay ; or

(B) by nomination from amongst candidates who:-

(a) is ordinarily not less than 35 years of age;

wp-5380-10.sxw

(b) has for at least seven years held a Judicial Office in India or the

Office of a Member of a Tribunal or any post under the Union or a State

requiring special knowledge of law; or

(c ) has for at least seven years been an Advocate of a High Court or of

two or more such Courts in succession; or

(d)(i) is a post Graduate in Law with specialisation in personal Law;

or

(ii) has a post Graduate degree in social science such as Master of Social

Welfare, Sociology, Psychology/Philosophy with a degree in Law; and

(iii) has at least seven years' experience in field work/research or of

teaching in a Government Department or in a College/University or a

comparable academic institute, with special reference to problem of women

and children; or

(iv) has seven years' experience in the examination and/or application of

Central/State Laws relating to marriage, divorce, maintenance,

guardianship, adoption and other family disputes; or

8. Thus Rule 3(B) of the Recruitment & Service Rules states that a

candidate by nomination for the post of Judge, Family Court is required to be

wp-5380-10.sxw

"ordinarily" not less than 35 years of age, as opposed to Clause 2(1) of the

advertisement which states that such a candidate must on the date of the

advertisement, not be less than 35 years of age. (emphasis supplied). As

noted earlier the Recruitment and Service Rules have been framed by the

Government in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article

309 of the Constitution of India and Section 23 read with Section 4 of the

Family Courts Act, 1984, in consultation with the High Court and, therefore,

the requirements of eligibility including the minimum age prescribed therein

shall undoubtedly prevail over the very same requirement set out in the

advertisement. Thus it was not permissible for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2

to state that the candidate must not be less than 35 years of age. The

Recruitment and Service Rules have maintained a flexibility regarding the

minimum age requirement and avoided to use the word "must" and the Rules

have deliberately used the word "ordinarily" and the said word must be given

its natural meaning and it cannot be replaced or made otiose/redundant by the

High Court administration. As per the dictionary meaning, the word

"ordinarily" means "generally" or "as far as possible". Thus even if the

High Court was justified in fixing the cut-off date as 27th September, 2009 for

eligibility criteria, so far as the minimum age is concerned there has to be a

wp-5380-10.sxw

flexibility rather than rigidity and if on the date of the application or as on

the last date prescribed to receive the applications if the candidate would

meet the requirement of minimum age, there is no reason to adopt a rigid

stand to hold such a candidate ineligible. We must also keep in mind that

Section 4(4)(b) of the Family Court Act as well as Rule 4(b) of the

Recruitment & Service Rules specifically speak of preference being given to

women candidates.

9.

In the case of Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra) a 3 Judge Bench of the

Supreme Court held :-

".....The proposition that where applications are called for

prescribing a particular date as the last date for filing the

applications the eligibility of the candidates shall have to be judged

with reference to that date and that date alone, is a well-established

one. A person who acquires the prescribed qualification

subsequent to such prescribed date cannot be considered at all. An

advertisement or notification issued/published calling for

applications constitutes a representation to the public and the

authority issuing it is bound by such representation. It cannot act

contrary to it........"

wp-5380-10.sxw

10. It is pertinent to note that the words used by the Supreme Court are "a

particular date as last date for filing the applications" and in the instant case

the last date prescribed for filing the application was 30th October, 2009. In

our opinion this judgment does not come in the way of the petitioner and the

similarly placed two other candidates and on the other hand it supports her

submissions. In the subsequent decision in the case of Shankar Nandal

(supra) the Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgtments in the case of

Ashok Kumar Sharma (supra), Bhupinderpal Singh vs. State of Punjab,

(2000) 5 SCC 262 and Jasbir Rani vs. State of Punjab, (2002) 1 SCC 124

and culled out the following principles:-

(1) The cut-off date by reference to which the eligibility

requirement must be satisfied by the candidate seeking a public

employment is the date appointed by the relevant service rules.

(2) If there is no cut-off date appointed by the rules then such date

shall be as appointed for the purpose in the advertisement calling

for applications.

(3) If there is no such date appointed then the eligibility criteria

shall be applied by reference to the last date appointed by which the

wp-5380-10.sxw

applications were to be received by the competent authority."

11. The High Court has rightly relied upon this decision in the case of

Shankar K. Mandal (supra) in support of fixing 27th September, 2010 as the

cut-off date to meet the eligibility requirements and we cannot find fault with

the same. However, when the Recruitment and Service Rules have used the

word "ordinarily" in regard to the minimum age requirement, a flexibility is

envisaged and it cannot be said that the candidate must on 27th September,

2009, have completed the age of 35 years. We find fault with the word

"must" used in the advertisement as it goes contrary to the Recruitment and

Service Rules.

12. In the premises, this petition succeeds and we hold that the petitioner

as well as Smt. Charusheela Sachin Paunikar and Ms. Naaz Ruheela cannot

be held to be ineligible candidates on the ground that they did not complete

the age of 35 years as on 27th September, 2009. We hold that they are

eligible candidates as they completed the age of 35 years either on the date

they submitted the applications or on the last date prescribed to receive their

applications i.e. 30th October, 2009. We direct the Respondent No.1 i.e. the

wp-5380-10.sxw

Registrar General to add the names of the petitioner and Smt. Charusheela

Sachin Paunikar and Ms. Naaz Ruheela as eligible candidates to undergo the

selection process, along with the other 750 candidates who are found so

eligible for the same, for the post of Judge, Family Court.

13. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs.

                                                
    (U. D. SALVI, J.)
                                   ig           (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)