Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 11

Candidates cannot claim as a matter of right relaxation or increase in upper age limit merely because the Chief Minister tweeted in this regard, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held. The ruling came in a case where the petitioner-candidates were seeking upper age relaxation to apply for police sub-inspectors’ posts.

Appearing before Justice Girish Agnihotri’s Bench, Navdeep Singh Brar and 55 other petitioners had conceded that they did not fulfil the criteria prescribed in the advertisement as their age was beyond 28. But their counsel argued that the Punjab Chief Minister had on July 12, 2020, in his official tweet said “the official announcement of the increase in recruitment age from 28 years to 32 for DSPs and Sub-Inspectors will be made in the coming days....”

Police recruitment

• Appearing before Justice Girish Agnihotri’s Bench, Navdeep Singh Brar and 55 other petitioners had conceded they did not fulfil the criteria prescribed in the advertisement as their age was beyond 28
• But their counsel argued that the CM had in his tweet had said the announcement of increase in age from 28 to 32 years for DSPs and Sub-Inspectors would be made in the coming days

Justice Agnihotri’s Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that the issue of age relaxation after the tweet was discussed at various levels. It was the considered decision on the state’s behalf neither to increase the upper age limit from 28 to 32, nor to relax the age beyond 28.

Justice Agnihotri also made it clear that petitioner-candidates could not seek extension in upper age limit by taking the plea of Covid situation. The assertion came after Justice Agnihotri took note of the petitioners’ prayers for “counting their age as on January 1” in lines of Supreme Court judgment, whereby the period starting from March 15, 2020, till further orders, was directed to be considered as ‘Zero Period’ in view of the pandemic.

Justice Agnihotri asserted it was not the case of the parties that the advertisement was initially issued in 2019 or 2020, when the petitioners were allegedly within the maximum age limit.

“The selection process apparently has not been deferred or delayed because of the Covid situation. Therefore, the petitioners herein cannot claim their right for extension of upper age limit,” Justice Agnihotri ruled.

Dismissing the petitions, Justice Agnihotri further made it clear there was no legal obligation on the state’s part to fill all vacancies that had fallen vacant. The court was in agreement with the state counsel’s contention that the ‘employer’s’ decision whether to fill the vacancies at any particular time depended upon the public need, administrative exigencies and availability of infrastructure or budgetary provision.