Writ Petition No. 11651/2012. Case: Rupendra Kumar Bhatt Vs State of M.P.. High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Writ Petition No. 11651/2012 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Dr. Anuvad Shrivastava, Advocate and For Respondents: Mr. Piyush Dharmadhikari, Govt. Advocate |
| Judges | Alok Aradhe, J. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Article 14 |
| Citation | ILR 2013 MP 130, 2013 (2) MPHT 150 |
| Judgement Date | January 02, 2013 |
| Court | High Court of Madhya Pradesh (India) |
Order:
Alok Aradhe, J.
-
Heard on the question of admission.
In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in fixing the upper age limit of 28 years as one of the eligibility criteria for recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector and Constable in the Police Department as well as Special Armed Force.
Facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is a member of Other Backward Class community. The Inspector General of Police issued advertisements dated 25-12-2011 and 1-1-2012 respectively, inviting applications for recruitment to the posts of Sub Inspectors and General Constables. Paragraph 4.1 of the advertisement provides that the age of the candidate as on 1-1-2012 should not be less than 18 years and should not be more than 28 years. The petitioner in the aforesaid factual backdrop has approached this Court.
-
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that fixing of upper age limit as 28 years is arbitrary and unreasonable. It is further submitted that there is no nexus between fixing of upper age limit of 28 years with the object sought to be achieved. It is also urged that in other Departments of State Government like Transport, Excise, Jail and Home Guards, where the employees also perform the duties of Police, the upper age limit has been fixed as 35 years. Therefore, there is no justification to fix the upper age limit as 28 years. It is fairly submitted that petitioner had appeared in the examination, however, his candidature was rejected on the ground that he does not meet the eligibility criteria with regard to upper age limit.
-
I have considered the respective submissions made by...
To continue reading
Request your trial