Anusha v. SecretaryTamil Nadu Public Service CommissionOmanthurar Government EstateChennai – 2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 20..12..2007Coram:The Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.CHANDRUW.P. No. 37764 of 2007and M.P. No. 1 of 2007Anusha.. Petitioner Vs.SecretaryTamil Nadu Public Service CommissionOmanthurar Government EstateChennai – 2 .. Respondent Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiaseeking for issuance of writ of Declaration in the light of theappended affidavit, declaring Clause 6(a)(1) of Advertisement No.120 issued by the respondent without date as being ultra viresArticles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequentlydirect the respondents to validate petitioner's candidacy for theGroup 1 Services Exam 2006-2007.For Petitioner: Mr. SelvaranganFor Respondents: Mr. Arul ORDERHeard Mr. Selvarangan, learned counsel appearing for thepetitioner and Mr. Arul, learned counsel representing therespondents and perused the records. 2.The petitioner challenges paragraph 6(A)(1) of theAdvertisement No. 120 issued by the Tamil Nadu Public ServiceCommission [for short, 'TNPSC'] on the ground that it is violativeof Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. TheAdvertisement No. 120 issued by the respondent TNPSC called forcandidates for various posts for Group I Service. In paragraph 6(A)(1) of the Notification, it is stated as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

6. QUALIFICATIONS:-(A) AGE (as on 01.07.2007):(i)MINIMUM AGE LIMIT – Should have completed 21years (for all candidates) (i.e. Should have beenborn on or before 01.07.1986)(ii)MAXIMUM AGE LIMIT - Should not havecompleted-35 years for Scs, Sts, MBCs/DCs, Bcs and DestituteWidows of all castes.30 years for candidates not belonging to any of theabove said categories." 3.According to the petitioner, prescription of minimum ageof 21 years is arbitrary as she is only 20 years old and she cannotbe denied consideration of employment on the ground of fixation ofminimum age limit.4.In similar writ petition, the fixation of maximum age andgiving concession to other communities in granting relaxation frommaximum age was upheld by this Court in W.P. No. 36299 of2007 in N.Uma Devi v. The Secretary, Educational Department and anothervide order dated 04.12.2007. The basis on which such arestriction was upheld equally applies to the fixation of minimumage limit also.5.It is essential for the employer to prescribequalification whenever they seek for candidates for relevant posts.It is not open to the petitioner, who does not have prescribedqualification in terms of the impugned Notification, to comeforward to challenge the same.6.Thereafter, the learned counsel for the petitionerpressed into service the argument of the legitimate expectation.The said argument is misconceived because such a legitimateexpectation cannot go against the statutory Rule made by theGovernment in terms of Article 309 of the Constitution of India.In the decision relating to Ram Pravesh Singh and others v.State of Bihar and others [JT 2006 (12) SC 209], the Supreme Courtset out the parameters of the concept of Legitimate Expectation.The following passage found in paragraph 14 may be usefullyextracted below:Para 14:"What is legitimate expectation? Obviously, it isnot a legal right. It is an expectation of abenefit, relief or remedy, that may ordinarily flowfrom a promise or established practice. The term“established practice” refers to a regular,consistent, predictable and certain conduct, processor activity of the decision-making authority. Theexpectation should be legitimate, that is, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reasonable, logical and valid. Any expectation whichis based on sporadic or casual or random acts, orwhich is unreasonable, illogical or invalid cannotbe a legitimate expectation. Not being a right, itis not enforceable as such. It is a conceptfashioned by the courts, for judicial review ofadministrative action. It is procedural in characterbased on the requirement of a higher degree offairness in administrative action, as a consequenceof the promise made, or practice established. Inshort, a person can be said to have a “legitimateexpectation” of a particular treatment, if anyrepresentation or promise is made by an authority,either expressly or impliedly, or if the regular andconsistent past practice of the authority gives roomfor such expectation in the normal course. As aground for relief, the efficacy of the doctrine israther weak as its slot is just above “fairness inaction” but far below “promissory estoppel”. It mayonly entitle an expectant: ( a ) to an opportunityto show cause before the expectation is dashed; or (b ) to an explanation as to the cause for denial. Inappropriate cases, the courts may grant a directionrequiring the authority to follow the promisedprocedure or established practice. A legitimateexpectation, even when made out, does not alwaysentitle the expectant to a relief. Public interest,change in policy, conduct of the expectant or anyother valid or bona fide reason given by thedecision-maker, may be sufficient to negative the“legitimate expectation”. The doctrine of legitimate expectation based onestablished practice (as contrasted from legitimateexpectation based on a promise), can be invoked onlyby someone who has dealings or transactions ornegotiations with an authority, on which suchestablished practice has a bearing, or by someonewho has a recognised legal relationship with theauthority. A total stranger unconnected with theauthority or a person who had no previous dealingswith the authority and who has not entered into anytransaction or negotiations with the authority,cannot invoke the doctrine of legitimateexpectation, merely on the ground that the authorityhas a general obligation to act fairly." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

7.In a recent judgment of the Supreme Court reported in2007 AIR SCW 5989 [Union of India and others v. S. Vinod Kumarand others], it was held that the prescription of qualification isprerogative of an employer and the Court power is very limited.The relevant passage found in paragraphs 10 and 11 read as follows:Para 10:"It may be true that the cut-off marks at 71 hadbeen fixed for unreserved candidates on the basisthat marks obtained by the last candidate, i.e.240th candidate, calculated at 50% of the 480candidates, but concededly 56 marks were fixed forOther Backward Classes candidates and 20 marks werefixed for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribecandidates. Only because the cut-off marks at 71 hadbeen fixed on the basis of the aforementionedcriteria, the same by itself, in our opinion, wouldnot mean that no cut-off mark had been fixed. Thefact that the Railway Administration intended to fixthe cut-off mark for the purpose of filling up thevacancies in respect of the general category as alsoreserved category candidates is evident from thefact that different cut-off marks were fixed fordifferent categories of candidates. We are,therefore, unable to accept the submission of thelearned counsel that the cut-off marks fixed waswholly arbitrary so as to offend the principles ofequality enshrined under Article 14 of theConstitution of India. The power of the employer tofix the cut-off marks is neither denied nordisputed. If the cut-off mark was fixed on arational basis, no exception thereto can be taken.Para 11:.... Once it is held that the appellants had therequisite jurisdiction to fix the cut-off marks, thenecessary corollary thereof would be that it couldnot be directed to lower the same. It is trite thatit is for the employer or the expert body todetermine the cut-off marks. The court whileexercising its power of judicial review would notordinarily intermeddle therewith. The jurisdictionof the court, in this behalf, is limited. The cut-off marks fixed will depend upon the importance ofthe subject for the post in question. It ispermissible to fix different cut-off marks fordifferent categories of candidates. (See BankingService Recruitment Board v. V. Ramalingam)[Emphasis added] https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

8.In view of the above, the writ petition fails and standsdismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.griToSecretaryTamil Nadu Public Service CommissionOmanthurar Government EstateChennai – 2W.P. No. 37764 of 2007vrk[co]gp/8.1.