Writ court cannot substitute its view in place of government policy: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently held that a writ court cannot substitute its own view for that of the government in a matter of policy [Sandhya Manohar Waghchoure v. State of Maharashtra through General Administration Dept & Anr]..While doing so, the Court dismissed a petition seeking to quash a government resolution regarding the appointment of Assistant Public Prosecutors. Specifically, the cut-off date for setting the age limit criterion for the post was under challenge..The Bench of Justices Gautam Patel and Madhav Jamdar did not find any part of the resolution so "manifestly arbitrary" that it could not be allowed to stand."Even if petitioner's submission may be better than the one that the State Government has chosen, it is not the remit of the constitutional Court to let the best become the enemy of the good. A writ court will not substitute its own view for that of the government in a matter of policy. Unless a particular government action is found to be ultra vires the Constitution or a statute on settled tests, a writ court will not interfere merely because it is preferable to do so," the order emphasized..The resolution stated that applications could be made by candidates who completed 45 years of age during the period from March 1, 2020 until the date when the resolution was issued - December 17, 2021.However, since the advertisement calling for applications could not be published due to the COVID-19 pandemic, an opportunity was given for appointment as a 'one time special case' till December 31, 2022..The crucial aspect as per the plea was that the cut-off date date for the age limit of 45 years must have been attained by the date when the resolution was published. The petitioner had crossed the age of 45 years on December 26, 2021. The advertisement published on January 7, 2022 thus rendered all persons who crossed 45 years ineligible, the plea stated.Senior Advocate RV Pai, appearing for the petitioner, made two-fold submissions: That the end date of December 17, 2021 was irrational with no cogent nexus with the object of the resolution and the logical cut-off date ought to be January 7, 2022; andThat a discernible rational nexus and intelligible differentia are the corner stones of all government polices..From these submissions, the Court deduced that what essentially the plea sought was "rewriting a particular term of the GR" which was unacceptable."What date should be fixed for the operation of any particular GR, either as the starting or the ending point, is a matter of government policy", the Court clarified.It also opined that age criteria made a "significant difference when one considers it from the perspective of the serious implications of financial implications and seniority that this presents to the State Government in relation to those in its full-time employment.".The Court also found,"Indeed looking to the circular we find that the Government has been careful to exclude from all age-bar disqualification for almost the entire period of the lockdown starting from 1st March 2020 and going on to the date of GR in mid-December 2022. Indeed, the GR goes further. For it says that those who have crossed the prescribed age limit during that period can avail benefits of this GR all the way until 31st December 2022, i.e. in further and future advertisement that may be issued even after the date of the GR."With these observations, the Court refused to intervene and rejected the plea..[Read order]