Senior counsel Pratap Narayan Sanghi pointed out the prescribing maximum age was an artificial one without there being an intelligible differentia or any object sought to be achieved. The senior counsel appearing for the High Court justified the age factor stating that the decision of prescribing age for employees is in the realm of ‘policy decision.’ It can be challenged on limited grounds. The same cannot be challenged merely because an individual is deprived of an age-limit prescribed by the rules. He further added that a cut-off date has to be prescribed which will certainly deprive a few persons who are below and above the cut-off age and the deprivation alone cannot be a reason to interfere with the Rules. On a detailed consideration of the facts of the case, the panel, speaking through Justice Paul, pointed out that in an earlier round of litigation, the law on the subject was upheld and there was no reason to depart from the same.
Justice Paul further pointed out that requiring a certificate from a bar association under the State could not be termed as illegal as the purpose of obtaining the certificate is to ensure that the advocate is actually practicing in the concerned court. Since there is an objective sought to be achieved, the same cannot be termed ‘unconstitutional.’ Thus, it observed that this ground must fail. Dismissing the batch of writ petitions, the panel said it is the prerogative of the employer to decide the eligibility, education qualification and age of the candidates. It is mainly a managerial/administrative decision that is within the province of the employer. The panel after referring to multiple pronouncements said in view of the ratio decidendi of these judgments, no fault can be found in the impugned rules in prescribing different age limits for different categories of candidates. The batch of writ petitions was accordingly dismissed.
