Three writ petitions challenging age relaxation norms in CRPF recruitment and remusteration rules were dismissed. The Court found no irrationality in reducing departmental age relaxation uniformly to 30 years and held applying the 2014 rules to an individual error was lawful.
Applications dismissed; no order as to costs.
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.
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AM UL YA
CM 44940/2018 (delay) in W.P.(C) 1468/2018 CM 44939/2018 (delay) in W-PiO 1866/2018
W.P.(C) 1468/2018 W.P.(C) 1866/2018 W.P.(C) 3669/2018
%
t
W.P.(C)1468/2018 & connected matters
Page 2 of 4
'>
and reserved category i.e. SC/ST/OB.C.
W.P.(C)1468/2018&connectedmatters
Page3of4
1/1
the impugned orders.
orders as to costs.
S. MURAODHAR, J.
SANJEEV NAiaJLA, J
DECEMBER 10, 2018
rd
Page 4 of 4
W.P.(C) 1468/2018 & connected matters
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the reduction of age relaxation for departmental candidates from 33 to 30 years under CRPF Rules, 2014 is irrational and unconstitutional.
Whether the application of 2014 Amendment Rules to respondents who qualified under 2010 Rules rectified an administrative error amounts to illegality.
Petitioners
Respondents
S. MURADHAR
SANJEEV NAYAK
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
