Court should not interfere in policies regarding government recruitment: Karnataka High court

Courts Should Not Interfere In Determining The Age Limit Or Cut Off Dates For Govt. Recruitment On The Name Of Judicial Review: Karnataka HC

In an instant matter, a complaint has been filed before the Hon’ble high court, wherein the respondent alleged that there is no logical reason behind increasing the age for govt. recruitment from 21 years to 26 years. Additionally, the respondent also stated that there is no proper study or survey which has been conducted to change the age limit, subsequently, it was also alleged by the respondent that changing the age limit for govt. recruitment is against the fundamental right granted to citizens under Article 14 and Article 16 of the Indian Constitution, as this artificial restraint is prejudiced.

It is pertinent to mention that in an ongoing matter, the respondent has also approached Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “KAT”) wherein the present petition was dismissed by the tribunal (KAT). 

Subsequently, the respondent approached the Hon’ble HC in the instant matter. 

Following the instant petition filed before the Hon’ble HC, wherein, Ld. Adv. General appearing on behalf of the state submitted that the proposal of amendment of Rule 4 by the respondent is constitutional because usually under the Indian Education system when a person attains the age of 23 years while completing technical degrees like MBBS or MDS they are required to do an internship which certainly goes on for a long period. Meanwhile, it can be observed that during their internship period a person attains the age of 25-26 years. 

After following and considering the submission made by the Ld. Adv General appearing on behalf of the state and the respondent in the instant case, the Hon’ble HC bench observed that in the name of judicial review the Hon’ble courts cannot interfere in any of the matter of government policy. Further, the Hon’ble court stated that “it should be under the ambit of government for determining age limit and cut off. Subsequently, it is advised by the Hon’ble court that the state should not interfere in such decisions concerning of government policy”.

Finally, the Hon’ble court stated that there is no violation of Article 14 of the Indian constitution as the government has provided proper reasoning behind their decision and that there is a reasonable and rational objective behind their decision.

Ultimately, the petition has been dismissed by the Hon’ble high court.

Case: Vikas Gowda versus. the State of Karnataka

Ananya Bharti
I am Ananya Bharti, second year student at Vivekananda Institute of professional studies. The constitutional law which set forth the basic law of land excites me the most. In addition to constitutional law , I also have an inclination to criminal law . According to me after constitutional law, criminal law is the most justifiable law for the society. Apart from this , I am also an avid reader and therefore at my recess fictious book becomes my bosom. So this is what I am.