Supreme Court Upholds Age Limit for Rehbar-e-Taleem Teachers: State of Jammu and Kashmir vs. Shaheena Masarat (2021)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 29 September 2021

Citation: (2021) INSC 650

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J.

Can the government relax the maximum age limit for teachers under the Rehbar-e-Taleem scheme? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the mandatory nature of age criteria for teacher appointments in Jammu and Kashmir. This judgment has significant implications for service law and the interpretation of eligibility criteria in public employment. The Supreme Court, in this case, examined whether the phrase “as far as possible” in the scheme and advertisement regarding age qualification made the upper age limit directory or mandatory.

Case Background

The State of Jammu and Kashmir introduced the Rehbar-e-Taleem (Re-T) scheme on 28 April 2000 to promote community participation in elementary education. The scheme aimed to appoint teaching guides (Re-Ts) in primary and middle schools to address staff shortages. An advertisement was published on 29 November 2002, specifying that candidates should be permanent residents of the state, belong to the village where the vacancy existed, possess a minimum qualification of 10+2, and, “as far as possible,” meet the age qualification prescribed by the State Government.

In response to the advertisement, 11 candidates applied for the position at Bundook Khar Mohalla Rainawari primary school. Respondent No. 2 was selected. Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir at Srinagar, challenging the appointment of Respondent No. 2, primarily on the grounds that Respondent No. 2 had crossed the maximum age limit.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 8 September 2008, holding that Respondent No. 2 was eligible. However, the Division Bench of the High Court overturned this decision, directing the appointment of Respondent No. 1 as Re-T and also directed continuance of Respondent No. 2. The State of Jammu and Kashmir then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir initially dismissed the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1, with the Single Judge holding that Respondent No. 2 was eligible for appointment as Re-T based on a relaxation of the upper age limit. The Single Judge relied on SRO 30 of 2003, which relaxed the upper age limit from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2004.

However, the Division Bench of the High Court overturned this decision. It held that SRO 30 of 2003 could not apply to the selection process that began with the advertisement dated 29 November 2002. The Division Bench also interpreted the phrase “as far as possible” in the advertisement regarding age as mandatory, not directory. Consequently, the Division Bench directed the appointment of Respondent No. 1 and continuance of Respondent No. 2.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation of the Re-T scheme and the advertisement dated 29 November 2002, which stated that candidates should “as far as possible” fulfill the age qualification prescribed by the State Government. The upper age limit was 35 years as of 1 January 2002.

The relevant legal provisions include:

• Article 14 of the Constitution of India: Guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the laws.
• Article 16 of the Constitution of India: Ensures equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
• Rule 17 of the Jammu and Kashmir Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1956: This rule was amended to relax the upper age limit from 01.01.2003 to 31.12.2004.

The Supreme Court considered whether the phrase “as far as possible” made the age limit directory, allowing for relaxation, or mandatory, requiring strict adherence. The court also considered the implications of such interpretation on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Arguments

Appellant’s (State of Jammu and Kashmir) Arguments:

• The High Court erred in directing the appointment of both Respondents for a single post.
• The primary contention was that the Division Bench correctly interpreted the age criteria as mandatory.

Respondent No. 1’s Arguments:

• Respondent No. 2 was ineligible as she had crossed the maximum age limit of 35 years.
• SRO 30 of 2003, which relaxed the maximum age by 2 years, does not apply to this case.
• The learned Single Judge misinterpreted the condition relating to the upper age limit.

Respondent No. 2’s Arguments:

• Her appointment was strictly in accordance with the advertisement.
• The maximum age was relaxed as per SRO 30 of 2003, which applies to all selections.
• The words “as far as possible” are directory, giving authorities the power to relax the maximum age beyond 35 years.
• Her appointment should not be disturbed as she has served for 18 years.

The innovativeness of the arguments lies in the interpretation of the phrase “as far as possible.” Respondent No. 2 argued that this phrase made the age limit directory, allowing for relaxation, while Respondent No. 1 argued that it should be interpreted as mandatory to ensure uniformity and fairness in public employment.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in directing the appointment of Respondent No. 1 as Re-T.
2. Whether the High Court was correct in directing the continuance of Respondent No. 2 as Re-T.
3. Whether the words ‘as far as possible’ in the scheme and the advertisement made the age criteria directory or mandatory.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court analyzed the submissions made by all parties and the authorities relied upon by them. The Court agreed with the Division Bench of the High Court that the age limit should be considered mandatory.

The Supreme Court considered the authorities in the following manner:

• Iridium Indian Tele-Communication V. Motorola In-Charge, [2005 (2) SCC 145]*: The Court distinguished this case, stating that the interpretation of “as far as possible” in the context of the Letters Patent was different from its use in the present case.
• Manickchand Durgaprasad V. Pratabmull Rameswar, [AIR 1961 Cal 483]*: This case was referred to show that the words ‘as far as possible’ were directory.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to maintain uniformity and fairness in public employment. The Court emphasized that interpreting the age limit as directory would lead to arbitrary selections, violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Court also considered the implications of its decision on the Re-T scheme and the need to ensure that the scheme operates within constitutional parameters.

The Court emphasized that appointments to public posts should be strictly in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Eligibility criteria should be uniform, and there should be no scope for arbitrary selections.

The ratio of fact to law indicates that the court primarily focused on the legal interpretation of the phrase “as far as possible” and its implications on constitutional principles. While the facts of the case were considered, the legal analysis was the predominant factor in the court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that the upper age limit of 35 years for appointment as Re-T is mandatory. The Court stated, “Appointments to public posts should be strictly in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Eligibility criteria should be uniform and there cannot be scope of arbitrary selections by unfettered discretion being vested in the authorities.”

The Court rejected the argument that the phrase “as far as possible” made the age limit directory, stating, “Construing the provision relating to upper age limit as directory would be conferring unbridled power in the executive to choose persons of their choice by relaxing the age beyond 35 years. In such case, the provision would have to be declared as unconstitutional.”

The Court further noted, “Therefore, we are of the opinion that 35 years is the upper age limit for appointment as Re-T. The 2nd Respondent who has crossed 35 years on the cut-off date was not eligible for appointment. The High Court has correctly directed the appointment of the 1st Respondent as Re-T.”

The Court set aside the High Court’s direction to continue Respondent No. 2’s employment but directed the Appellant to accommodate her in any other vacancy, without any benefits prior to the date of her fresh appointment.

The Court did not have any dissenting opinion.

Key Takeaways

• The upper age limit for public employment, when specified, should be strictly adhered to unless there is a specific provision for relaxation.
• The phrase “as far as possible” does not grant arbitrary power to relax eligibility criteria.
• Public appointments must be made in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, ensuring equality and fairness.
• The judgment emphasizes the importance of maintaining uniformity in selection processes for public posts.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Appellant to accommodate Respondent No. 2 in any other vacancy. She shall not be entitled to any benefits prior to the date of her appointment afresh other than the salary and other allowances already paid for her services.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the phrase “as far as possible” when used in the context of eligibility criteria for public employment does not make the criteria directory. The Supreme Court clarified that such criteria should be interpreted as mandatory to ensure uniformity and fairness in public employment, thereby upholding the principles enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in State of Jammu And Kashmir & Ors. vs. Shaheena Masarat & Anr. clarifies that the age limit for Re-T teachers is mandatory, not directory. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to eligibility criteria in public employment to ensure fairness and avoid arbitrary selections. This judgment reinforces the constitutional principles of equality and equal opportunity in public service.