The court dismissed a petition challenging the age eligibility cut-off date for State Services Examinations. The petitioner argued he was denied an opportunity to appear due to the date shift. The court held it could not modify the date under Article 226 and found no arbitrariness in the decision.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4994 OF 2005
Ravindra Lahudas Pisal ..Petitioner.
Vs.
Maharashtra Public Service
Commission & anr. ..Respondents.
Mr.Suresh Sabrad for the Petitioner.
Mr.V.S.Gokhale, AGP for the State,
CORAM :A.P.SHAH &
DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, JJ.
18th August, 2005.
P.C.:
1. The Petitioner is presently working as an
Agricultural Supervisor at the Taluka Agricultural
Office, Bhor. The Petitioner appeared for the
State Services Examination between 1996 and 2002,
but was not successful. An advertisement was
issued in June 2005 notifying the holding of the
State Services (Preliminary) Examinations 2004.
The condition of eligibility in regard to age is
2
that a candidate must not be in excess of 33 years
of age as on 1st October, 2005. The Petitioner
does not fulfil the requirement. The Petitioner
has submitted that the examination was not held in
2004 and as a result he was deprived of an
opportunity of appearing for the examination during
the course of that year. The Petitioner submits
that the cut off date should have been 1st October,
2004 and not 1st October, 2005 for determining the
maximum age of 33 years.
2. The Learned AGP has stated on instructions
that the Maharashtra Public Service Commission
conducted the preliminary and main examinations for
the year 2003 to the State Services on 30th May,
2004 and 11th to 24th February, 2005 respectively.
Hence, it is not correct to say that the Petitioner
was deprived of an opportunity of appearing for the
examination.
3. We are of the view that it would not be
possible for this Court in the exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 to modify the cut
off date or to direct that the candidature of the
Petitioner be considered even though he does not
3
fulfil the age requirement. The fixation of the
cut off date is bound to cause hardship in some
cases, but that cannot be a ground to deviate from
the requirement that is prescribed in accordance
with law. We do not find any arbitrariness in the
decision of the First Respondent. There is no
merit in the Petition. The Petition is accordingly
rejected.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court could modify the eligibility cut-off date or allow candidature despite non-compliance with age requirements under its writ jurisdiction.
Whether the requirement to fix a cut-off date for the State Services Examination caused arbitrariness warranting judicial intervention.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ravindra Lahudas Pisal
Maharashtra Public Service Commission
A.P. Shah
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court