Former MP M. Ramadass has urged Lt. Governor Kiran Bedi to reconsider her decision to reject the proposal of the Cabinet to allow relaxation in the upper age limit prescribed for the recruitment of constables in the Department of Police.
Terming the decision “unfortunate”, Mr. Ramadass said in a statement that it would have been a different outcome had the request referred to the Raj Nivas for approval been assessed from the vantage point of public welfare, in a dispassionate and pragmatic manner and after taking into account the aspirations of unemployed youth. On the contrary, the Raj Nivas appeared to have adopted the “dogmatic stance’ that “no settled policy” can be “unsettled”, the former MP said.
“Altering or amending an insignificant part(age) of a recruitment rule is a mundane matter which does not fall in the realm of policy at all. Even if it is a policy, it is not characterised by rigidity or permanency to qualify itself as a “settled policy”, especially, in a pluralistic, multilingual and cultural society like India which in the words of the Prime Minister himself undergoes dynamic changes,” he said. According to Mr. Ramadass, changes in society necessitate dynamism in policy and even “unsettle” them if so warranted by public welfare. In fact, even the Indian Constitution, the most sacred document has been amended several times in response to changing needs and social aspirations, he added.
The recruitment rule framed by the All India Police Reforms Committee at a particular point of time need not be the appropriate one at all times and in all places. It is gathered that the age criterion for the post of constable is not uniform in all States but varies from State to State depending on the exigencies prevailing there. Even in Puducherry, the recruitment rule for the post of constable has not remained static but has been changed several times. When the Department could not receive enough applications with the prescribed height for the post of women constables it readily reduced the height limit, Mr. Ramadass pointed out.
In his view, the demand for raising the upper age limit was justified given the inaction of the Government to recruit police constables as and when vacancies arose. “If the Government had recruited the constables on an annual basis, the youth in appropriate age could have been employed and nobody would have advanced a case for relaxation in age,” he said.
As a result, vacancies have accumulated for the last three years depriving an opportunity to the youth to get jobs at the prescribed age limit. “The lapse of three years has to be compensated and the best remedy is to raise the upper age limit by two if not by three years. This is warranted by the canon of natural justice,” he said. Relaxation in age is not detrimental to Governmental interest but in fact would help the public cause. It should be remembered that all policies are for the people and the people are not for policies, he said.
Mr. Ramadass said raising the upper age limit permits only an entry into the selection process and not a guarantee for employment. As long as the selectors are objective and adopt rigorous selection process, it is quite immaterial whether the selected persons belong to 18-22 or 18- 24 age group. In all probability, the Home Ministry may approve the proposal of the Cabinet in the light of the above justification just as the DGP and the Chief Secretary had approved the measure of raising the upper age limit.
In the given circumstances he hoped that the Lt Governor would reconsider her position and approve the decision of the Cabinet, as this was not a big ground for difference of opinion between the Cabinet and the Administrator warranting a Presidential reference.
