Determination of cut off dates, fixing age limit for govt recruitment in the realm of policy; courts should not interfere: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court recently observed that the determination of cut-off dates or fixing the age limit for recruitment to government posts are decisions to be taken by the government as a matter of policy and therefore, courts should not interfere with such decisions [Vikas Gowda v. State of Karnataka]..A Division Bench of Justices Arvind Kumar and Pradeep Singh Yerur said that courts in the guise of judicial review should not take over such executive functions. ."As held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in HIRANDAR KUMAR's case referred to supra, validity of a Rule cannot be made to depend on cases of individual hardship which inevitably arise in applying the principle of general application. The determination of cut off dates or fixing the age limit lies in the realm of policy and in the guise of power of judicial review, the court would not take over that function by itself.".The observations came in a plea challenging the decision of the State government amending Rule 4 of the Karnataka State Civil Services Rules to raise the minimum age criteria from 21 years to 26 years for being appointed as Medical Officers in the State. .The petitioners first approached the the Karnataka State Administrative (KAT) Tribunal challenging the same, but the plea was dismissed. Aggrieved by this, the petitioners knocked the doors of the High Court. .Arguments of Parties.The petitioners contended that there is no rationale behind enhancement of the age from 21 years to 26 years and it is an artificial restriction which is discriminatory. Therefore, the rule is liable to be struck down for being violative of Articles 14 and 16, it was submitted. Apart from being illogical, no study was conducted as to why suddenly minimum age fixed at 21 was increased to twenty six, it was further argued. .Additional Advocate General (AAG) Aruna Shyam, appearing for the State government submitted that the normally under the Indian educational system, by the time of completion of MBBS/ BDS degree, the age of a person would be 23 years and after internship of one year along with compulsory rural training at government hospitals for one year, the candidate would be about about 25 years old. .Keeping these aspects in mind, the State government had proposed to amend Rule 4 by enhancing the age requirement from 21 years to 26 years. Such amendment is not violative of Article 14 or Article 16 of Constitution of India,it was contended. .What the Court held .The Bench proceeded to examine a slew of of Supreme Court judgments to gauge the ambit Articles 14 and 16 and the KAT order. .Based on the precedents, it concluded that it is for the authorities to prescribe qualifications particular in matters of technical nature and courts and tribunals should stay away 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 matters are of technical nature.".The Court further opined that any such prescription of higher qualification than those prescribed in the Rules is also a prerogative of the government or the employer. .On the Article 14 argument in particular, the Court said that the object sought to be achieved by the amendment is to provide better and quality health service by more experienced doctors to the general public. "It is no doubt true that experience has not been fixed as the criteria for the appointment to the post of General Duty Medical Officers. However, it does not mean that State has no power to file the minimum age criteria,".The Court also found substance in the contentions raised by AAG in this regard. .Therefore, the Court proceeded to opine that there is reasonable classification and a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by amending the minimum age criteria from 21 years to 26 years and it is not violative of Article 14 or Article 16 of the Constitution of India.."Thus, Government having felt that doctors who are already working and having experience and who have been doing commendable job are required to be provided an opportunity 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 these observations the Court upheld the validity of the rule and dismissed the petition.