Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ku. Priyanka Shroff vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 9 March, 2021
Author: Sujoy Paul
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH;
BENCH AT INDORE
W.A. No.222/2021
Ku.Priyanka Shroff Vs. State of MP and Another 1
INDORE; DATED - 09/03/2021
Shri AK Sethi, learned Senior counsel with Ms.Charu Jain,
learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Vivek Dalal, learned Additional Advocate General for the
respondent/State.
Heard finally with the consent of the parties.
PER, SUJOY PAUL J:-
The singular question involved in this present writ appeal is
whether the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the WP
No.3609/2021 by holding that even if recruitment rules do not provide
any cut off date for determining the maximum age of candidate for the
post of Member/Chairman of Juvenile Justice Boards, the employer was
well within its right to prescribe the cut off date i.e. 01.01.2020 in the
advertisement dated 30.07.2020. The said cut off date is not arbitrary or
discriminatory in nature. Indeed, it is uniformly applicable for all
aspiring candidates.
2. The order of learned Single Judge is assailed by learned Senior
counsel for the petitioner on the singular ground that if rules are silent
regarding cut off date to determine the maximum age of candidates, in
view of the judgment passed in Rakesh Kumar Sharam Vs. State
(NCT of Delhi) and others reported in (2013) 11 SCC 58, Public
Service Commission Vs. Arvind Singh Chauhan and others reported
in (2009) 9 SCC 135, Malik Mazhar Sultan and Another Vs. UP
Public Service Commission and Others reported in (2006) 9 SCC 507,
Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs. Union of India and Others reported in
(2007) 4 SCC 54 and Ashish Singh Vs. State of MP and Others
reported in 2011 (2) MPLJ, the last date for filling the application must
be considered as cut off date. Hence, the impugned order needs to be set
aside.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH;
BENCH AT INDORE
W.A. No.222/2021
Ku.Priyanka Shroff Vs. State of MP and Another 2
3. Sounding the contra note, Shri Vivek Dalal, learned AAG
supported the impugned order and placed reliance in the judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jasbir Rani Vs. State of Punjab
reported in 2002 (1) SCC 124.
4. No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the parties.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused
the record.
6. On a specific query from the bench, learned Senior counsel for the
appellants fairly admitted that the judgments relied upon by him relates
to the educational qualification and do not lay down any law regarding
cut off date for the purpose of determination of age of candidates.
7. In our view, this point is no more res integra. In Jabir Rani Vs.
State of Punjab (supra), it was held as under :-
11. No doubt, the Rule does not provide a cut-off date by which
an applicant is to satisfy the prescribed eligibility qualification
pertaining to age. In the absence of a statutory provision in that
regard the date has to be fixed at the time of issuing the
advertisement. This is necessary not merely to enable the
appointing authority to sort out the applications of the eligible
candidates from those candidates who do not fulfil the
prescribed qualification, but also to avoid criticism of
favouritism and nepotism against the authority.
8. In Ami Lal Bhat (Dr.) Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (1997)
6 SCC 614, it was held as under :-
5. This contention, in our view, is not sustainable. In the first
place the fixing of a cut-off date for determining the maximum
or minimum age prescribed for a post is not, per se, arbitrary.
Basically, the fixing of a cut-off date for determining the
maximum or minimum age required for a post, is in the
discretion of the rule-making authority or the employer as
the case may be. One must accept that such a cut-off date
cannot be fixed with any mathematical precision and in such a
manner as would avoid hardship in all conceivable cases. As
soon as a cut-off date is fixed there will be some persons who
fall on the right side of the cut-off date and some persons who
will fall on the wrong side of the cut-off date. That cannot
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH;
BENCH AT INDORE
W.A. No.222/2021
Ku.Priyanka Shroff Vs. State of MP and Another 3
make the cut-off date, per se, arbitrary unless the cut-off date is
so wide off the mark as to make it wholly unreasonable.
9. In CSIR Vs. Ramesh Chandra Agrawal reported in (2009) 3
SCC 35, it was held as under :-
30. The High Court, however, proceeded on the basis that the
cut-off date should have been the date of issuance of the
notification. The employer in this behalf has a choice. Its
discretion can be held to be arbitrary but then the High Court
only with a view to show sympathy to some of the candidates
could not have fixed another date, only because according to
it, another date was more suitable.
(Emphasis Supplied)
10. In view of these judgments, it is clear that the learned Single
Judge has not committed any error of law in declining interference. In
our view, prescription of qualification and eligibility conditions are in
the province of employer. In a selection process initiated in July, 2020,
if cut off date is prescribed as 01.01.2020, we are unable to hold that
such cut off date is irrational, arbitrary and attracts wednesbury
principles. As noticed, judgments cited by the learned Senior counsel for
the petitioner are not related to cut off date to determine the age of
candidates. Hence, those judgments cannot be pressed into service.
11. In view of the foregoing analysis, in our view, the learned Single
Judge has taken a plausible view which is in consonance with settled
legal position. [See Management of Narendra and Company Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. Workmen of Narendra and Company reported in 2016 (3)
SCC 340.]
12. Hence, we find no reason to interfere in this writ appeal.
13. The writ appeal stands dismissed.
(Sujoy Paul) (Shailendra Shukla)
Judge Judge
sourabh
Digitally signed by SOURABH
YADAV
Date: 2021.03.09 17:52:43 +05'30'
