Supreme Court validates Rajasthan's age cut-off for recruitment, clarifies age relaxation rules

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the cut-off date fixed by the State of Rajasthan for determining the maximum age of candidates for direct recruitment, ruling it neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. The Court dismissed candidates' appeals challenging the cut-off date, allowed the State's appeals, clarified age relaxation provisions, and determined that the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition did not make the High Court's decision final regarding an individual's appointment. The Court set aside Division Benches' judgments and upheld the Full Bench's reasoning on the cut-off date issue. No costs were awarded.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a Rule-making Authority can fix a cut-off date with reference to the calendar year for determining the maximum age of a candidate for direct recruitment to a service under the State.
2. Whether such a cut-off date is arbitrary or unreasonable.
3. Whether the provision for age relaxation should be applied to candidates affected by delayed advertisements.
4. Whether the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition affects the finality of a High Court decision regarding an individual's appointment.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether a Rule-making Authority can fix a cut-off date with reference to the calendar year for determining the maximum age of a candidate for direct recruitment to a service under the State:

The Supreme Court examined the legality of fixing a cut-off date for determining the maximum age of a candidate for direct recruitment under various service rules in the State of Rajasthan. The rules in question, such as the Rajasthan Medical Services (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962, and others, uniformly prescribed the cut-off date as the 1st day of January following the last date fixed for receipt of applications. The Court held that fixing a cut-off date for determining the maximum or minimum age required for a post is within the discretion of the Rule-making Authority or the employer. The Court emphasized that such a cut-off date cannot be fixed with mathematical precision to avoid hardship in all conceivable cases.

2. Whether such a cut-off date is arbitrary or unreasonable:

The Court rejected the contention that the cut-off date of 1st January following the last date fixed for receipt of applications is arbitrary. Citing previous judgments, the Court noted that fixing a specific and determinate date for age eligibility is necessary to avoid uncertainty. The Court referenced cases such as Union of India v. M/s. Parameswaran Match Works and A.P. Public Service Commission v. Sharat Chandra, which upheld the validity of fixed cut-off dates to ensure certainty in the recruitment process. The Court concluded that the cut-off date fixed by the State of Rajasthan is not so wide off the mark as to be considered grossly unreasonable or arbitrary.

3. Whether the provision for age relaxation should be applied to candidates affected by delayed advertisements:

The appellants argued that age relaxation should be granted to candidates who are adversely affected by delayed advertisements. The Court rejected this argument, stating that the power of relaxation is to be exercised in public interest in specific cases, such as when suitable candidates are not available or to mitigate hardship. The Court emphasized that there cannot be wholesale relaxation based on delayed advertisements, as it would lead to total uncertainty in determining the maximum age of a candidate and could be unfair to other candidates who might not apply, thinking they are age-barred.

4. Whether the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition affects the finality of a High Court decision regarding an individual's appointment:

The Court addressed the contention that the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in the case of Dr. Rajeev Mathur made the High Court's decision final. The Court clarified that the dismissal of the SLP did not make the High Court's decision final on the facts of the case, as the affected candidate (who was second in the merit list) had also filed a special leave petition, which was granted leave and numbered as C.A. 2691/1991. This appeal directly challenged the appointment of Dr. Rajeev Mathur. Therefore, the Court held that the appointment of Dr. Rajeev Mathur was not final and required consideration on its merits.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the cut-off date fixed by the relevant service rules of the State of Rajasthan, determining it was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable. The Court dismissed the appeals of candidates challenging the cut-off date and allowed the appeals filed by the State of Rajasthan. The Court also clarified the application of age relaxation provisions and the impact of the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition on the finality of a High Court decision. The judgments of the Division Benches of the Rajasthan High Court striking down the 1st of January cut-off date were set aside, and the reasoning and conclusion of the Full Bench of the Rajasthan High Court were upheld. There was no order as to costs.

---