Provision For Upper Age Limit Is Mandatory And Can’t Be Relaxed

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• “Appointments to public posts should be strictly in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India", the Court said.
• The eligibility standards must be uniform without giving any scope of arbitrary selections.
• The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal filed by the Jammu and Kashmir government challenging an order of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court.
• The appointment of a primary teacher in Jammu and Kashmir who had crossed the upper age limit according to the eligibility norms was overturned by the Supreme Court.

BACKGROUND

• In the year 2000, the State of Jammu and Kashmir floated a scheme called Rehbar-e-Taleem for promotion and decentralizing management of fundamental education.
• For candidates seeking appointment under the scheme, the requirement was that they should be the State’s permanent resident, belong to the town where staff shortages were found, acquire minimum education of 10+2, and fulfil the age criteria required by the state government.
• The Supreme Court observed that the selection under Rehbar-e-Taleem for the primary school at Bundook Khar Mohalla Rainawari was held in which 11 candidates applied pursuant to the Notification dated November 29, 2002.
• The employment of the second respondent, Ruhi Akhtar, as a teaching guide was contested by the first respondent, Shaheena Masarat.
• The first respondent approached the Jammu and Kashmir High Court by a way of writ for quashing the order through which respondent one was appointed.
• The high court dismissed the writ petition made by Shaheena Masarat.
• Aggrieved by the order, respondent one filed an appeal through which the Division bench directed for her appointment within a period of one month and also directed the continuance of the second respondent.

COURT’S OBSERVATION

• The Supreme Court said that giving relaxation of the upper age limit from 2003-2004 based on a state notification cannot be applied to a selection that began with the circulation of advertisement in 2002.
• The apex court said that the division bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court examined the scheme and noticed that the upper age limit notified in the advertisement was 35 years as on 1 January 2003.
• The Supreme Court approved the Division Bench’s view of defining the provision relating to the upper age limit should be made mandatory.
• The bench said that the second respondent had crossed the 35 year age deadline and was not eligible for appointment and the High Court had correctly guided the appointment of the first respondent.
• Pertaining to the continuance of Ruhi’s (first respondent) appointment, the bench set aside the decision of the Division Bench and directed the state to accommodate her in any other vacancy.
• Ruhi (first respondent) will not be entitled to any benefits prior to her appointment date, other than the salary and allowances previously paid for her services, the court said.

Do you think there should be a mandatory age limit in all public posts? Let us know in the comments below!

Shouldn’t educational qualifications and experience be given more value than age in case of school appointments?