Dipankar Paul And Ors vs State Of Tripura And Ors

[1] Heard Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. K. De, learned Addl. GA appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 & 3.

[2] By means of this writ petition, the petitioners, who are presently serving as the Constable under the Tripura Police Organisation and who had applied for recruitment in the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in terms of the employment advertisement No.03/2019, have challenged the corrigendum dated 10.03.2020 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) whereby the clause relating to the age in the said employment advertisement has been partly modified. The original clause in the employment advertisement No.03/2019 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) reads as follows:

"Age (for Men & Women):- Minimum 21 years and maximum 27 years as on 01.01.2019 on the basis of Madhyamik, Higher Secondary of equivalent examination Certificate/Admit Card. Upper Age-limit is relaxable by 5 (five) years in case of SC, ST, Differently abled (PH) candidates and Government Servants, provided that the Govt. Servants of SC/ST Differently abled (PH) category shall not get this relaxation over and above the general relaxation of 5 (five) years available to them. In case of Ex-Serviceman, the age is relaxable as per Memo No.F.14(19)-P/84 dated 09.04.1985 issued by the Political Department, Govt. of Tripura."

[3] The relaxation in age provided for the government servant has been withdrawn by the corrigendum dated 10.03.2020 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). Now, the said clause reads as under:

"Age (for Men & Women): Minimum 21 years and maximum 27 years as on 01.01.2019 Maximum age-limit is relaxable by 5 (five) years for SC/ST candidates".

[4] There is no dispute that the petitioners have not only applied for the said post but they have participated in the physical efficiency test and written examination. The writ petitioners have been declared successful till that phase of the selection. By the notification dated 20.02.2020 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition), the candidates who had been successful were asked to appear in the personality test for selection of Sub-Inspector of Police [unarmed] in Men. From the same notification, it is evident that the petitioners' roll No. being 12137, 10830, 11400, 11799, 12876, 10615, 11881, 11246, 1009 & 10988 appearing in the said list, meaning the petitioners were declared eligible to appear before the personality test. All on a sudden, the said corrigendum was issued on 10.03.2020 whereby the age relaxation by five years as given to the government employees has been withdrawn. The petitioners were found eligible by stroke of the said amendment, the relaxation in age has become the matter of past. The petitioners have already crossed 27 years which is the maximum age for appointment to the post of the Sub-Inspector, male.

[5] Being aggrieved by the said action of Tripura Public Service Commission, this writ petition has been filed. Mr. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that in the midst of the selection process, the rules of the selection cannot be changed and as such, the said action is arbitrary and unsustainable.

[6] Mr. A. K. Bhowmik, learned Advocate General appearing for the state has submitted that this corrigendum has been made in terms of the recruitment rules for the Sub-Inspector of Police (Unarmed Branch) (Men and Women). In Rule 6 of the said recruitment rules it has been clearly provided as under:

"Minimum 21 years and maximum 27 years as on 1st January of the year in which selection is made, Maximum age limit is relaxable by 5 (five) years for SC/ST candidates as per Tripura SC&ST (reservation of vacancies and post) Act 1991."

[7] Mr. Bhowmik, learned Advocate General has pointed out that in the recruitment rules, the government has consciously excluded the relaxation of age for the government employees considering the very nature of the job. The objective of the state government is to re-recruit young and energetic male by way of direct recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Unarmed Branch, Men). Mr. Bhowmik, learned Advocate General has apprised that 50% posts of the entire cadre strength are earmarked to be filled up by promotion where the employees like the petitioners will be considered in due course when they will come and enter into the zone of consideration. Only 50% of the total cadre strength has been earmarked for the direct recruitment.

[8] Mr. R. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2 & 3 has submitted that in the first employment advertisement No.03/2019 there crept a bona-fide mistake. When such mistake was brought to the notice of the Tripura Public Service Commission, they have corrected the said mistake by issuing the said corrigendum. The clause relating to the relaxation of age in the employment advertisement was completely inconsistent with the recruitment rules which was published under Notification No.F.1(16)-PD/2005(P) (Annexure-R/1 to the reply filed by the respondents No.2 and 3). As such, there is no illegality, inasmuch as a bona-fide mistake has been corrected by the corrigendum, as challenged in this writ petition.

[9] Mr. Datta, learned counsel has candidly submitted that Tripura Public Service Commission does not wield any authority to determine the age or to grant relaxation in age. Such authority is available with the State government under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In support of his contention, he has placed his reliance on a decision of the apex court in Malik Mazhar Sultan and Another vs. U.P Public Service Commission and Others reported in (2006) 9 SCC 507 where the apex court has observed that the excluded candidates were eligible in terms of age as per the advertisement, but not in terms of the recruitment rules. The error, if any, in the advertisement cannot override the provisions of the Rules. By mistake what has been provided in the advertisement cannot create a right in favour of candidate. The relaxation of age can be granted only if the same is permissible under the Rules and not on the basis of the advertisement. If the interpretation of the Rules provided by the PSC was erroneous at the time of issuing the advertisement, no right can accrue therefrom.

[10] Mr. Datta has, therefore, submitted that the relevant rule has clearly excluded the category of persons like the petitioners who have crossed the maximum age limit of 27 years from setting the relaxation for their being the government employees. Those persons cannot claim relaxation by 5 (five) years, as no such relaxation has been permitted by the recruitment rules.

[11] Having appreciated the submission of the counsel for the parties, this court does not have any hesitation to hold that no infirmity has been committed by the Tripura Public Service Commission by withdrawing the relaxation clause which found place in the first employment advertisement No.03/2019. The corrigendum as issued by the Tripura Public Service Commission is completely inconsonance with the recruitment rules. The petitioner cannot claim any right on the basis of the said advertisement. The right as claimed by the petitioners is completely in contrast to the recruitment rules. Unless the right flows from the recruitment rules, such right cannot be recognized by any court of law.

[12] In Malik Mazhar Sultan (supra), the apex court has observed that the recruitment rules, so far the selection and appointment are concerned, will prevail over the other instructions.

Having observed thus, this writ petition stands dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.