Dismissed

Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Dec 2010CWP/23483/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissing a writ petition challenging the upper age limit of 37 years for advertised posts, this court held that employers have the prerogative to fix eligibility norms including age limits and that courts should not interfere with such discretion.

What did the court decide?

The petition to challenge the age limit was dismissed; the petitioner is at liberty to apply to the competent authority for relaxation of age.

Harpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CWP No.23483 of 2010 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

DATE OF DECISION: 24.12.2010

Harpreet Singh

...Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Punjab and another

¶8

…Respondents

¶9

CORAM

¶10

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI

¶11

PRESENT: Mr.RM Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner

¶12

Permod Kohli, J. (Oral)

¶13

The respondents issued an advertisement in the Tribune newspaper on 24.11.2010 inviting applications for the posts of Field Officer (Preservation) and Assistant Field Officer. The upper age limit prescribed in the advertisement is 37 years. It is admitted case of the petitioner that the petitioner is over age by three months. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that these posts which have been advertised were available for the last four years, but due to negligence of the respondents, the posts have not been advertised and thus, the petitioner has become over age during this period. The other argument is that in the neighbouring State of Haryana, the upper age limit is 40 years for applying for such type of posts. It is settled position of law that the advertisement is enforceable and binding upon the parties. Otherwise also, it is the

¶14

CWP No.23483 of 2010 2

¶15

prerogative of the employer to fix the norms, including age limit, if the statute does not provide. Employer has right to fix the eligibility norms. The mere fact that the post is lying vacant does not mean that an eligible person acquires a right to apply for the post. It is the discretion of the employer to fill up the post or not, depending upon its working needs, administrative reasons including the financial constraints. On this ground also, writ court is not required to interfere and it should be left to the wisdom of the employer. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner may at least be granted relaxation of age. So far as relaxation of age is concerned, it is again the prerogative of the competent authority and the court is not required to act as an employer or the competent authority. I find no merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to apply to the competent authority for relaxation of age, in accordance with law.

¶16

(PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE

¶17

24.12. 2010 MFK

¶18

CWP No.10585 of 2010 3

Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harpreet Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ved Prakash Vs Haryana State Warehousing Corporation & Anr.

Rani Devi Vs U.H.B.V.N.L. and Ors.

Prem Lata Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Satya Pal Nagpal Vs H.V.P.N.L. and Ors.

Inderaj and Others Vs D.H.B.V.N.L. and Others