Dr. M.A. Bose v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 26-06-2008CORAM :THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARANW.P. No. 13824 of 2008andM.P. No. 1 of 2008Dr. M.A. Bose.. Petitioner Versus1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary to Government Department of Health Fort St. George Chennai – 600 0092. The Director of Medical Education No.162, E.V.R. Periyar High Road Kilpauk Chennai – 600 0103. The Selection Committee rep. By its Secretary Directorate of Medical Education No.162, E.V.R. Periyar High Road Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010.. RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of The Constitution of Indiapraying for a Writ of Declaration as stated therein.For Petitioner :Mr. R. SrinivasFor Respondents :Mrs. Dakshayini Reddy Government AdvocateORDERThe petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a Writof declaration declaring that the eligibility criteria fixed inClause 15 (1) of the prospectus for the academic year 2008-2009 toadmission to the three year higher speciality course in Tamil NaduGovernment Medical Colleges issued by the third respondent isillegal, unlawful, unreasonable, arbitrary and hence null and voidand consequentially direct the respondents to consider thepetitioner's candidature for Mch decree on merits and withoutreference to petitioner's age in accordance with law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.Mr. Srinivas, learned counsel appearing for the petitionersubmitted that the petitioner is a Doctor, aged 64 years, completedM.S. Degree in General Surgery in the year 1982 and practising inVirudhunagar District; that he applied for a seat in Mch degree forNeurosurgery/Plastic Survery in the year 2007 and wrote the entranceexamination; that in that discipline, only four seats were availableout of which two seats were reserved for candidates from governmentservice and two seats for candidates from private practice, but thepetitioner was ranked in serial No.3 among private candidates, hence,he could not secure the admission; that the third respondent issuedprospectus relating to admission to three year higher specialitycourse in Tamil Nadu Medical Colleges for 2008-2009 by surprisinglyfixing maximum age limit of 50 years as on 30.06.2008, which isevident in clause 15 (1) of the said prospectus; that in view of thesaid condition, the petitioner was disentitled to apply, which isunfair, unlawful, illegal and the same was suddenly introduced onlyin the academic year 2008-2009, hence, the present writ petition hasbeen filed for declaration to declare that the eligibility criteriafixed in Clause 15 (1) of the prospectus for the academic year 2008-2009 is null and void and consequentially direct the respondents toconsider the petitioner's candidature for Mch decree on merits. 3.On the above contention, this Court heard Mrs. DakshayiniReddy, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, whosubmitted that the respondents are spending huge amount to each andevery student of higher speciality course with the expectation toavail their knowledge and service to the society by appointing themin government service after completion of the course, keeping in mindthe duration of the course is three years and age of superannuationis 58 for all government servants, hence, the said condition isvalid, reasonable and nexus to the object to be achieved and prayedfor dismissal of the writ petition. 4.This Court considered the submission of the counsel forboth sides and perused the records placed. Classification based onminimum age prescribed for taking a particular examination is notbeyond the powers of educational authorities, but only to obtain bestmaterial for a professional course. Prescribing determination ofmaximum or minimum age of the candidate for a particular course isnot per se arbitrary. Basically, fixing of a cut off date fordetermining the maximum or minimum age required for a particularcourse is in the discretion of the authorities. Followed (Dr. Ami LalBhat vs. State of Rajasthan and others) AIR 1957 SC 2964, wherein inPara No.5, it was held thus:- 5. This contention, in our view, is notsustainable. In the first place the fixing of acut-off date for determining the maximum orminimum age prescribed for a post is not, per se,arbitrary. Basically, the fixing of a cut-offdate for determining the maximum or minimum agerequired for a post, is in the discretion of therule-making authority or the employer as the case https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ may be. One must accept that such a cut-off datecannot be fixed with any mathematical precisionand in such a manner as would avoid hardship inall conceivable cases. As soon as a cut-off dateis fixed there will be some persons who fall onthe right side of the cut-off date and somepersons who will fall on the wrong side of thecut-off date. That cannot make the cut-off date,per se, arbitrary unless the cut-off date is sowide off the mark as to make it whollyunreasonable. This view was expressed by thisCourt in Union of India v. Parameswaran MatchWorks1 and has been reiterated in subsequentcases. In the case of A.P. Public ServiceCommission v. B. Sarat Chandra2 the relevantservice rule stipulated that the candidate shouldnot have completed the age of 26 years on the 1stday of July of the year in which the selection ismade. Such a cut-off date was challenged. ThisCourt considered the various steps required inthe process of selection and said,“when such are the different steps in theprocess of selection the minimum or maximumage of suitability of a candidate forappointment cannot be allowed to depend uponany fluctuating or uncertain date. If thefinal stage of selection is delayed and moreoften it happens for various reasons, thecandidates who are eligible on the date ofapplication may find themselves eliminatedat the final stage for no fault of theirs.The date to attain the minimum or maximumage must, therefore, be specific anddeterminate as on a particular date forcandidates to apply and for the recruitingagency to scrutinise the applications”.This Court, therefore, held that in order toavoid uncertainty in respect of minimum ormaximum age of a candidate, which may arise ifsuch an age is linked to the process of selectionwhich may take an uncertain time, it is desirablethat such a cut-off date should be with referenceto a fixed date. Therefore, fixing an independentcut-off date, far from being arbitrary, makes forcertainty in determining the maximum age. 5.In the absence of any legal or constitutional infirmity,the Court will not substitute its judgment for that of academiciansas if sitting in appeal. The Court can interfere if there is noprinciple according to which the State has fixed the age limit. Itis argued on behalf of the petitioner that fixation of age limit isdiscrimination and unreasonableness. The reasonableness has to bedetermined with reference to the circumstances. Article 14 only https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ needs that persons similarly circumstanced should be treated alike,both in privileges conferred and liability imposed. The principle ofequality does not mean that every law must have universal applicationfor all persons who are not by nature, attainment or circumstances inthe same position, as the varying needs of different classes ofpersons often require separate treatment. Age form a rational basisin relation to the object of a particular subjects legislation,hence, fixing 50 years as maximum age as on 30.06.2008 by therespondents is perfectly valid.6.The respondents contended that the duration of thesuperspeciality course is three years, for which lot of amount isbeing spent by the respondents for imparting such course. Aftercompletion of the course, the services of those persons arenecessarily to be utilised for the society. If the persons exceeds50 years of age as on the date of entering into the said course, theobject of imparting such education cannot be achieved as minimumperiod of five years is required to be in government service, whichperiod cannot be held as unreasonable. 7.An argument was advanced by the petitioner that in the event ofnot rendering service to the State Government, the candidate isliable to the Government certain amount towards compensation, whicheven the petitioner agrees to pay is concerned, the payment ofcompensation alone cannot fulfil the conditions stipulated or objectsought to be achieved. In the case on hand, the petitioner is about64 years old. Of course, his spirit to pursue specialised educationat this age is appreciable, but if there is direct nexus betweenfixation of age limit and the object of the government, the latteralone prevails. It is needless to mention that the petitioner cannotbe inducted in government service after completion of thesuperspeciality course, hence, this Court is of the view that theconditions imposed in clause 15 (1) of the prospectus for theacademic year 2008-2009 to admission to the three year higherspeciality course in Tamil Nadu Government Medical Colleges issued bythe third respondent is valid and reasonable.8.In the result, the writ petition is dismissed as devoid ofmerits. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition isclosed.sd/-Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ rshTo1. The Secretary to GovernmentState of Tamil Nadu Department of Health Fort St. George Chennai – 600 0092. The Director of Medical Education No.162, E.V.R. Periyar High Road Kilpauk Chennai – 600 0103. The Secretary, Selection Committee Directorate of Medical Education No.162, E.V.R. Periyar High Road Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 0101 cc To The Government Pleader, SR.32639WP No. 13824 of 2008ck [co]gkg/8.7