JASBIR RANI AND ORS. versus STATE OFPUNJAB AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 494 · Decided: 19-10-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
JASBIR RANI AND ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF'PUNJAB AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 19, 2001 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Punjab Panchayat Secretaries (Recruitment and Conditioni of Serv-
ice)-Rules, 1979: Rule 5 (As amended in 1993)-Scope and interpretation of. 
State of Punjab-Panchayat Secretaries-Advertisement/or recruitment 
of male candidates-Second advertisement for recruitment of female candi-
dates-Eligibility of qualification pertaining to age-Same cut off date pre-
scribed prior to the date of appointment in both advertisements-Held valid. 
Rule 5 of the Punjab Panchayat Secretaries (Recruitment and Con-
ditions of Service) Rules, 1979 as it stood before amendment in 1993 
provided that no person shall be appointed to the service by direct recruit-
ment if he is less than seventeen years or more than twenty-seven years of 
age on the date of his appointment. This Rule was amended in 1993 
whereby the minimum and maximum age prescribed for the post were 
changed to 18 years and 35 years. The respondent-State in its two adver-
tisements dated 18th September, 1997 and 19th September, 1998 invited 
applications for the posts of panchayat secretaries - one for male candi-
dates and the other for female candidates. In both these advertisements the 
cut off date for satisfying the eligibility qualifications pertaining to age was 
fixed as 1st September, 1997. In accordance with the provisions in Rule 5 
as they stood after amendment the minimum and maximum age were 
stated in the advertisements. The writ petitions filed by the appellants 
challenging the cut off date fixed in the two advertisements were dismissed 
by High Court which held that the State Government did not commit any 
irregularlity in prescribing the same cut off date in both the advertise-
ments. 
In appeals to this Court it was contended on behalf of the appellants 
that (i) the cut-off date fixed under the advertisements is contrary to the 
provisions of the rule and therefore liable to be set aside; (ii) Rule 5 
494 
.. 
. • 
JASBIR RANI v. STATE 
495 
provides that a candidate is to fulfil the eligibility qualification pertaining 
to age on the date of his appointment and therefore, fixing a cut-off date 
prior to the date of appointment is not authorised by the rule and indeed is 
contrary to it. The connected writ petition also raises the same point. 
Dismissing the appeals and the writ petition, the Court 
HELD : 1. Prescribing a cut-off date prior to the date of appoint-
ment for the purpose of satisfying the eligibility qualifications pertaining 
to age is not impermissible under Rule 5 of the Punjab Panchayat Secre-
taries (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1979. The rule nei-
ther prescribes a cut-off date nor bars fixing of such a date by the author-
ity competent for making the appointment. In the absence of any such 
provision it cannot be said that Rule 5 even by implication prohibits fixing 
a cut-off date regarding age. In th~ absence of a statutory provision in that 
regard the date has to be 'fixed at the time of issuing the advertisement. 
A 
B 
c 
This is necessary not merely to enable the appointing authority to sort out 
D 
the applications of the eligible candidates from those candidates who do 
not fulfd the prescribed qualifications, but also to avoid criticism of a 
favouritism and nepotism against the authority. H the State Government 
had not fixed the cut-off date then there would have been a difference in 
date by which the eligibility qualification pertaining to age was to be 
E 
complied by male and female candidates. Such action would have exposed 
the authorities to criticism of discrimination. In the circumstances no 
exception can be taken to the action of the authority fixing the same cut-off 
date in both the advertisements. [498-E; G-H; 499-B] 
Bhupinderpal Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., [2000) 5 SCC 
262, relied on. 
F 
Ashok Kumar Sharma v. Chander Sekhar, [1997) 4 SCC 18, A.P. Public 
Service Commission v. B. Sarat Chandra, [1990) 2 SCC 669; Vizianagram 
Social We(fare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi, [1990) 3 
G 
SCC 655; Rekha Chaturvedi v. University of Rajasthan, [1993) Supp. 3 SCC 
168; M. V. Nair (Dr. v. Union of India, [1993) 2 SCC 429 and U.P. Public 
Service Commission, U.P. Allahaf?ad v. Alpana, [1994) 2 SCC 723, cited. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7304 of 2001. 
H 
496 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.