Dr. Mahendra Pal Verma and Another vs State of U.P. and Others

Present writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India has been filed challenging the validity of Rule 10 of U.P. Medical and Health Service Rules, 2004 (in short the Rules). For convenience, Rule 10 of the aforesaid Rules is reproduced as under:

Age. A candidate for direct recruitment must have attained the age of twenty one years and must not have attained the age of more than thirty five years on the first day of July of the calendar year in which vacancies for direct recruitment are advertised by the Commission:

Provided that the upper age limit in the case of candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and such other categories as may be notified by the Government from time to time, shall be greater by such number of years as may be specified.

While challenging the Rules, petitioners'' counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in Yamuna Shankar Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, where Hon''ble Supreme Court observed that weightage should be given to the Group-C/D employees who have served in stop gap arrangement.

Another judgment relied by the petitioners'' counsel is reported in Dr A.K. Jain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, This case relates to ad hoc medical officers. Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed that if ad hoc doctors who are appointed on a particular date i.e., 1.10.1984, apply for selection by the Union Public Service Commission the Union of India and the Railways Department shall grant relaxation in age to the extent of the period of service rendered by them as ad hoc doctors in the Railways.

The cases relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, do not seem to be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case, the Legislature to their wisdom, provided the age under Rule 10 of the Rules. Once the Legislature has provided that the recruitment shall be done at a particular age, then burden shall be on the petitioner to establish that the Rule is violative of certain constitutional/statutory provisions. Learned Counsel for the petitioner failed to establish as to which fundamental and constitutional right has been violated or the impugned provision is violative of certain statutes. Submission of the petitioner''s counsel that benefit of ad hoc service has been given in various sectors like, Railways and other departments, but the same has not been provided by the State Government while notifying the Rules.

What should be the conditions of service, the age of recruitment or age of retirement, the consideration falls within the domain of the State Government and once the State Government framed Rules in pursuance of powers conferred under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily, it is not open for this Court to interfere with the statutory provisions. It is settled law that every Act, Rules or Regulations framed by the State is presumed to be constitutionally valid unless demonstrated otherwise. Except the length of service, the petitioners'' counsel could not invite attention of this Court towards any statutory provision or constitutional rights which may be held to be infringed because of impugned Rule 10 of the Rules. Accordingly, we are of the view that there appears to be no good ground to interfere in the matter. So far as the submission of the petitioners'' counsel that service rendered by the petitioners should be counted or added while upholding the selection concerned, it is for the State Government to take a decision.

Accordingly, we give liberty to the petitioners to approach the State Government to ventilate their grievances and in case any representation is submitted, the State Government may consider the same sympathetically keeping in view the service rendered by the petitioners forthwith.

Subject to above, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.