In a petition filed before the court, arguing that there is no rationale behind increasing the age from 21 years to 26 years of age and that no study or survey has been conducted before the state decides to change the age limit is against the fundamental article 14 and article 16 as this artificial restriction is discriminatory.
The petitioner also approached Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KAT) but the same plea was dismissed there. Now the petitioner brings the case in front of the high court.
Aruna Shyam (additional advocate general) appearing for state government submitted that this proposal of amendment of Rule 4 is constitutional because usually under the Indian Education system a person reaches the age of 23 years while completing MBBS/BDS degree after this they are supposed to do an internship which makes their age ultimately around 25 years of age.
The bench comprising of justice Arvind Kumar and Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur observed that the court in the name of judicial review cannot interfere in the matter of government policy. The decision of determining age limit and cut off comes under the ambit of government policy. Hence, the state should not interfere in such decisions (Vikas Gowda v. the State of Karnataka).
The court also stated that there is no violation of Article 14 as the government has provided proper reasoning behind their decision. There is a reasonable and rational objective behind this decision.
The petition has been dismissed by the court.