Northeast | ArunachalAssamTripuraManipurMeghalayaMizoramNagalandSikkim
National
Neighbour | BhutanChinaMyanmarNepalBangladesh
WorldBusinessEntertainmentSportsEnvironmentLifestyleOpinionLOK SABHA ELECTION 2024
Advertisement

Meghalaya High Court rejects age limit challenge in police recruitment

02:27 PM May 30, 2024 IST | NE NOW NEWS
UpdateAt: 02:27 PM May 30, 2024 IST
Representative Image
Advertisement

Shillong: The Meghalaya High Court has denied an interim order in a case challenging the age limit for Meghalaya Police recruitment.

The petitioners sought permission for candidates exceeding the age limit to apply provisionally and for online applications from those who couldn't apply earlier due to the age restriction.

Their lawyer cited Supreme Court rulings and argued that another office memorandum (OM) from 2012 should be considered alongside the February 2022 OM setting the age limit.

They emphasized the public interest and minimal harm if applicants were allowed to proceed provisionally.

Also Read: Assam: Accountant abducted from oil depot in Sivasagar

The opposing counsel, representing the state, argued that the age limit was set according to the Meghalaya Police Act and the February 2022 OM allowed for setting minimum and maximum age limits.

The court noted the proximity of the request to the application deadline (May 31) and acknowledged the increased age limit (27 to 32 years) with additional relaxation for Scheduled Tribe and Caste candidates.

Also Read: Assam: Complaint against PM Modi for allegedly disrespecting Mahatma Gandhi

The court order clarified that the Personnel and AR (A) Department had the authority to set age limits as per the OM.

It further explained that a separate OM on May 1st established the age limit for sub-inspectors (27 years) and constables (21 years), aligning with the Police Act.

The court observed that the petitioners challenged only the advertisement's non-compliance with the February 2022 OM, not questioning the age limits themselves.

The court lastly ruled that the petitioners hadn't established a strong enough case for interim orders, and the request was rejected.

Advertisement