Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kishore Sing Gehlot & Ors vs State & Ors on 10 November, 2017
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13917 / 2017
1. Kishore Singh Gehlot S/o Shri Guman Singh Gehlot, Aged About
29 Years, Resident of Pahadganj-II, Mandore Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).
2. Rajendra Sou S/o Shri Bhana Ram, Aged About 29 Years,
Resident of V/P Vishnoiyo Ki Dhaniya Dhingana, Tehsil- Luni Dist.-
Jodhpur (Raj.).
3. Omprakash Choudhary S/o Shri Rupa Ram Choudhary, Aged
About 28 Years, Resident of V/P Pato Ki Basani, Tehsil- Baori,
Dist.- Jodhpur (Raj.).
4. Balvinder Singh S/o Shri Harbans Ram, Aged About 29 Years,
Resident of V/P 29 APD, 90 GB, Dist.- Ganganagar (Raj.).
5. Jetha Ram S/o Shri Ghewar Ram, Aged About 29 Years,
Resident of V/P Pato Ki Basani, Tehsil- Baori, Dist.- Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Home Department,
Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Bikaner, District Bikaner (Raj.).
4. The Superintendent of Police, Pratapgarh, District Pratapgarh
(Raj.).
5. The Superintendent of Police, Ganganagar, District- Ganganagar
(Raj.).
6. The Superintendent of Police, Pali, District - Pali (Raj.).
7. The Commissionerate of Police, Jodhpur, District - Jodhpur
(Raj.).
8. The Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur (Rural), District -
Jodhpur (Raj.).
9. The Superintendent of Police, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara (Raj.).
----Respondents
(2 of 5)
[CW-13917/2017]
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pappu Sangwa
Mr. D.K. Godara
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Bissa, AGC
_____________________________________________________
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
10/11/2017
Petitioner(s) has/have preferred the present writ petition
mainly with a prayer that the respondents may be directed to
accept their off-line application form for the post of
Constable/Driver in pursuance of advertisement dated 18.10.2017
and they be further directed to permit the petitioners to appear in
the written examination. The petitioners' case is that the
respondents have not carried out recruitment for last 3-4 years,
during which period they have all become over age. It has also
been prayed that the respondents be directed to grant age
relaxation to the petitioners.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner(s) relied upon a
Co-ordinate Bench decision of this Court dated 03.05.2017,
rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18005/2016 titled as
"Rajendra Prasad Jat & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and
submitted that the petitioners are also entitled for a similar
direction, as has been given by a Co-ordinate Bench at Jaipur.
Mr. Anil Bissa, learned Additional Government Counsel for the
respondents submitted that no direction for grant of relaxation in
the upper age limit can be issued as has been held in Catena of
decision of this Court and Hon'ble the Supreme Court.
(3 of 5)
[CW-13917/2017]
To buttress his submission, Mr. Bissa cited a Division Bench
judgment dated 25.03.2014 rendered in D.B. Civil Special Appeal
(Writ) No.1151/2013 titled as "Rajasthan Public Service
Commission Vs. Mahendra Kumar & Ors.".
Heard learned counsels for both the sides and considered
submissions and judgments cited at Bar.
The legal position that this Court, in exercise of its power
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot issue a dictat
or writ or mandamus to grant relaxation in upper age limit, is
trite. This is also equally settled that it is within the domain of the
employer to grant relaxation in upper age cap, keeping into
consideration various factors, such as nature of job, fitness, etc.
This Court, therefore does not feel inclined to grant any
positive direction for grant of relaxation in upper age limit, merely
because for more than three years, no recruitment for the post of
Constable/Driver has taken place.
The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide its judgment dated
03.05.2017 has only permitted the petitioners to submit their
representation with the simultaneous direction to the respondents
to consider the same.
While issuing such direction, with a view to protect the
interest of the petitioners, this Court has directed the respondents
to accept their off-line application form; with a word of caution
that the same would not create any right or equity in petitioners
favour.
Looking to the innocuous order passed by the Co-ordinate
(4 of 5)
[CW-13917/2017]
Bench of this Court at Jaipur, vide its judgment dated 03.05.2017,
this Court feels inclined to issue identical directions in the present
petition, as under:-
Therefore, in the interest of justice, each petitioner is
granted liberty to make representation to the State
Government on the anvil of Rule 46 of Rules of 1989
and other co-related rules applicable to the case of
relaxation with regard to the age. It is ordered that in
case the representation is filed by the petitioner in
individual capacity within two weeks from today, then
the State Government shall take decision upon the
representation so filed within a period of four weeks,
independently without persuaded by any observation
made by this Court.
It is further ordered that till the representation to be
made by the petitioners is considered by the State
Government, the respondent shall accept the
application form of the petitioners offline and proceed
with the process of recruitment considering the
application of each petitioner to be in order.
It is further clarified that in case the State Government
reject the representations of the petitioner or
petitioners, candidature of the petitioner/petitioners
shall be cancelled and they shall be at liberty to assail
the decision of the State Government. However, in
case the State accepts representation and grant
relaxation, the respondents shall proceed ahead with
the matter. It is further clarified that the court has only
ordered that till the decision of the representation,
application of the petitioners shall be accepted offline
without commenting upon the rights of the State
Government to grant or refuse relaxation qua the age
of a candidate."
The respondents are directed to decide petitioners
(5 of 5)
[CW-13917/2017]
representation or take a common decision applicable to all for
grant of relaxation in upper age limit, on or before 15.12.2017.
The direction to decide the petitioners' representation for
grant of relaxation in upper age limit has been issued only with a
view to ensure expeditious redressal of their grievance and the
same may not be construed to be a direction to decide the
petitioners' representation for grant of relaxation in upper age
limit in a particular manner.
The writ petition is disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA), J.
Upendra/43