Case Note & Summary
The Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) published an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Education Officer. Clause 4 of the advertisement prescribed an upper age limit of 45 years for candidates belonging to the Special Backward Class category. Respondent No.1, Dr. Digambar Murlidhar Devang, applied for the post but was 47 years, 6 months, and 14 days old on the date of application, exceeding the age limit. After a screening test and inquiry, his candidature was rejected on the ground of being over-age. Aggrieved, Respondent No.1 filed Original Application No. 775/2011 before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad. The Tribunal allowed the application and directed MPSC to allow Respondent No.1 to participate in the selection process and to grant him age relaxation on account of his exceptional qualifications. MPSC challenged this order by filing a writ petition before the Bombay High Court. The High Court examined the advertisement and found that the age limit was clearly specified and binding. The Court held that the Tribunal had no authority to relax the age limit beyond what was advertised, as the advertisement constitutes the terms of the recruitment process. The Court noted that MPSC had received about 18,000 applications and granting relaxation to one candidate would be unfair to others. The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the Tribunal's order, and upheld MPSC's rejection of Respondent No.1's candidature.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Recruitment - Age Limit - Advertisement - Clause 4 of advertisement prescribed upper age limit of 45 years for Special Backward Class category - Respondent No.1 was 47 years 6 months 14 days old on application date - His candidature rejected as over-age - Tribunal directed petitioner to allow participation and grant age relaxation based on exceptional qualification - Held, Tribunal cannot relax age limit beyond what is advertised; advertisement is binding and cannot be modified by Tribunal (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal could direct the Maharashtra Public Service Commission to grant age relaxation to a candidate who was over-age as per the advertisement, based on his exceptional qualifications.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 24th December 2014, and upheld the rejection of respondent No.1's candidature by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission.
Law Points
- Age limit in advertisement is binding
- Tribunal cannot grant age relaxation beyond advertisement terms
- Recruitment process must adhere to advertised conditions
Case Details
2014 LawText (BOM) (12) 16
Writ Petition No. 7679 of 2014
S. V. Gangapurwala, V. K. Jadhav
Shri M. S. Kulkarni for Petitioner, Shri R. S. Deshmukh for Respondent No. 1, Shri U. S. Mote, A.G.P. for Respondent No. 2
The Maharashtra Public Service Commission
Dr. Digambar Murlidhar Devang, The State of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal directing age relaxation to an over-age candidate.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (MPSC) sought quashing of Tribunal's order allowing respondent No.1 to participate in selection process with age relaxation.
Filing Reason
Respondent No.1's candidature was rejected as over-age; Tribunal directed MPSC to grant age relaxation based on exceptional qualifications.
Previous Decisions
Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal allowed Original Application No. 775/2011 and directed MPSC to allow respondent No.1 to participate and grant age relaxation.
Issues
Whether the Tribunal could direct age relaxation beyond the advertisement's age limit.
Whether the advertisement's age limit is binding on the recruiting authority and the Tribunal.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the age limit of 45 years was clearly specified in clause 4 of the advertisement and respondent No.1 was over-age; Tribunal cannot relax the age limit.
Respondent No.1 argued that he possessed exceptional qualifications and deserved age relaxation.
Ratio Decidendi
The age limit prescribed in the advertisement is binding and cannot be relaxed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by directing age relaxation based on exceptional qualifications when the advertisement did not provide for such relaxation.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner Commission published advertisement inviting application from the interested candidate for filing up the post of Education Officer.
As per clause 4 of the advertisement, it is stated that the age of the candidate for reservation category should not be more than 45 year's.
The respondent No. 1 on the date of submitting application was 47 year's 6 month's and 14 day's.
The tribunal allowed the Original Application and directed the present petitioner to allow the respondent No. 1 to participate in the selection process and to give benefit of age relaxation to the respondent No. 1 as he possesses exceptional qualification.
Procedural History
Respondent No.1 applied for Education Officer post; MPSC rejected candidature as over-age; Respondent No.1 filed OA No. 775/2011 before Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal; Tribunal allowed OA and directed age relaxation; MPSC filed Writ Petition No. 7679/2014 before Bombay High Court; High Court allowed writ petition and quashed Tribunal's order.
