Age Limit Relaxation Can't Be Claimed Merely Because Chief Minister Tweeted In This Regard: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Bench of Justice Girish Agnihotri was hearing the plea of 56 petitioners, who prayed that the State of Punjab and others be directed to give age relaxation to them for applying against the posts of Police Sub Inspectors.

The matter in brief

The petitioners submitted before the Court that they did not fulfill the criteria prescribed in the advertisement against the posts of Police Sub Inspectors as their age is beyond the age of 28 years, which was required as on January 1, 2021, to apply for the said post.

The petitioners sought to rely on a tweet of the Chief Minister of Punjab, wherein responding to the query of one Mr. Amarpal Singh from Ludhiana, he had said that "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…"

It was also argued by them that the vacancies had come into existence in the years 2017, 2018, 2019 & 2020 but the same was not advertised and thus they were deprived of their chances of recruitment.

Court's observations

Distinguishing the instant case with that of Delhi High Court's ruling in the case of, wherein it was held that a promise or assurance given by the Chief Minister in a press conference amounts to an enforceable promise and that a CM is expected to exercise his authority to give effect to such a promise, the Bench observed thus:

"…the observations made by the Delhi High Court were keeping in view the fact that the tweet therein was by the worthy Chief Minister of Delhi regarding governmental policy. On the contrary, in the present case, a prescribed procedure as per the Rules of Business was required to be followed so as to amend the statutory Rules (especially Rule 12.6 of the Rules)."

The Court further ruled that the petitioners had no legal right to support the plea that they are entitled to age relaxation/increase in the upper age limit beyond 28 years merely because since 2016, no recruitment process had been initiated by the Government and accordingly, their chances of recruitment were affected.

In this regard, the Court observed thus:

"It is not the case of the petitioners that there was any bounden duty cast upon the respondents under any statutory Rules to fill up the post/vacancies of Sub Inspectors each year after 2016. This Court finds force in the stand of the respondents, inter alia, to the effect that no fundamental/legal right of the petitioners has been infringed by the respondents"

In this backdrop, the Court also clarified that there is no legal obligation on the part of the State that if the vacancies have fallen vacant, the State must fill-up the said vacancies immediately.

Importantly, in response to the argument of the petitioner that as per proviso to Rule 12.6(c) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, the Director-General of Police, Punjab has the power to relax the upper age limit under special circumstances, the Court said:

"It is for the executive authorities who have been vested with the power of relaxation to consider all the facts and circumstances. Before this Court, the respondents, on affidavit, have clarified that the matter was examined in the officer of Director General of Police. Various field officers were consulted and most of the field officers were not in favour of increasing the upper age limit. It has also been stated that the matter was discussed by the Director-General of Police with the Chief Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister, Punjab and Secretary Home also.

Therefore, in the above circumstances, the Court ruled that it does not find it to be a fit case to issue directions/mandamus to the competent authority to examine the issue of age relaxation.

In related news, while upholding the detention of a man, accused of black marketing of Remdesivir injections amid the Covid-19 pandemic, the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently observed that the social media posts of a Chief Minister can't be equated with an administrative order/instruction.

A Division Bench of Justices Sujoy Paul and Anil Verma further held that it is not necessary that every social media post of a government functionary is seen/read out and followed in the administrative hierarchy.

Case title - Navdeep Singh Brar & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order