A Division Bench of Justices Arvind Kumar and Pradeep Singh Yerur of Karnataka High Court, recently stated that the determination of the cut-off dates or fixing of the age limit for recruitment to government posts are decisions to be taken by the government as a subject matter of policymaking and therefore out of the purview of the courts. It further stated that courts under the guise of judicial review should not take over such functions.
Factual Background
The above-stated observation came in a plea challenging the decision of the State government amending Rule 4 of the Karnataka State Civil Service Rules to raise the minimum age criteria from 21 years to 26 years for being appointed as Medical Officers in the State.
Case of the Petitioner
The petitioners first moved the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal challenging the same, however, the plea was dismissed. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners approached the High Court.
The petitioners contended that there is no reasoning behind increasing the age limit from 21 years to 26 years and it is an artificial restriction that is discriminatory in nature and thus the rule should be struck down as it is contrary to Articles 14 and 16. Apart from being illogical, no study was conducted as to why suddenly minimum age fixed at 21 was increased to twenty-six.
Case of the Respondent
Additional Advocate General Aruna Shyam, appearing for the State government contended that normally under the Indian educational system, by the time of completion of MBBS/BDS degree, the age of person would be 23 years and after completion of internship period of one year along with compulsory rural training at the government hospitals for one year, the candidate would be about 25 years old.
Considering the same, the State government has proposed to amend Rule 4 by increasing the age limit from 21 years to 26 years. Such amendment is not in violation of Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution of India, it was submitted.
Observation of the Court
The Bench went through a number of Supreme Court rulings to assess the ambit of Articles 14 and 16 and the KAT order.
Based on the precedents, it concluded that it is for the authorities to prescribe qualifications specific in matters of technical nature, and courts and tribunals should be aloof from the same.
“Thus it is for the authorities to prescribe qualification and it is not in the province of the tribunal or court to tread into said path and prescribe the qualifications, in particular, when the matters are of technical nature”
Thus, the Court was of the view that there is reasonable classification and a rational nexus attached to the objective sought to be achieved by amending the minimum age limit from 21 years to 26 years and it not in violation of Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
“Thus the Government having felt that doctors who have already working and having experience and who have been doing commendable job are required to be provided as opppurtunity as their services can be utilized for providing better services have thought fit to enhance the minimum age from 21 years to 26 years which cannot be held either discriminatory or irrational.”
With the observations, the Court upheld the validity of the rule and dismissed the petition.
Case Details
Before: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Vikas Gowda v. Karnataka State
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justices Arvind Kumar and Pradeep Singh
Read Order@LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
