Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ajeeta Bai Meena D/O Shri Bhagwan Sahay ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 28 May, 2019
Bench: Chief Justice, G R Moolchandani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 698/2019
Ajeeta Bai Meena D/o Shri Bhagwan Sahay Meena, Aged About
23 Years, R/o Village Post Khandip Tehsil Wazeerpur, District
Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, College
Education, Goverment Secretarite, Jaipur, Rajasthan
2. The Commissioner, College Education, Srk Shikshu
Sankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer, (Raj)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mangal Chand Taylor, Adv. with Mr. R.M. Bairwa, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G R MOOLCHANDANI
Judgment
Reportable
Per : S.Ravindra Bhat, CJ
28/05/2019
1. The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of her writ petition. The learned Single Judge held that since she had not completed 21 years i.e. the minimum age prescribed to compete for the purpose of recruitment (as on 1.7.2015), her claim could not be granted.
2. Mr. MC Taylor, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submitted that on an identical question with respect to the same recruitment i.e. (the selection to the post of Lecturer, on account of advertisement issued on 12.01.2015) (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 04:38:19 AM) (2 of 4) [SAW-698/2019] this Court had affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge in appeal (D.B.Special Appeal (W) No.663-2019- Asha Meena Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission decided on 09.05.2019).
3. It is submitted that the above judgment in Asha Meena (supra) cannot be considered as an authority since it overlooked several salient and relevant aspects. It is argued that the advertisement unequivocally shows that the recruitment in fact coincides the financial or fiscal year. It was submitted that this Court in the judgment overlooked the fact a material aspect which is that a subsequent Notification (dated 15.10.2015) in fact amounted to a fresh advertisement and so viewed, the appellant was eligible to compete as she had reached the minimum age. It is further pointed out that the second advertisement cannot be considered as a corrigendum for two significant reasons; (i) that the number of vacancies were increased and even the details with respect to the vacancy position in various departments were disclosed and (ii) that the corrigendum for the first time indicated the mode of selection of appointment would be on the basis of written examination which was absent in the first advertisement dated 12.01.2015.
4. It was lastly submitted that para 9 of the fresh advertisement in fact gave an option to candidates to withdraw their application and seek to refund their fees which was not available earlier.
5. This Court had in Asha Meena, taken note of the Rule i.e. the Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1986 and observed as follows:-
"3. In the opinion of the Court, there is no infirmity in the reasoning adopted by the learned Single Judge since Rule 10 expressly stipulates that "A candidate for direct recruitment to the post of Lecturer must have attained the age of 21 years and must not .......... on the first day of July of the year in which the applications are invited by the Commission." This Rule is cast in imperative terms and stipulates that every candidate should have completed 21 years on 1st July in the year in which the applications are invited. This is regardless of the date of the invitation of the application by the Commission."(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 04:38:19 AM)
(3 of 4) [SAW-698/2019]
6. The arguments of the appellant in the opinion of this Court are unpersuasive. At the outset, the second advertisement clearly states that the conditions spelt out in the previous advertisement construed to be the same insofar as what was earlier mentioned except the amendments which enlarged the number of vacancies and the mode of examination. Other conditions in the previous advertisement prevailed. This is clearly indicative that the second advertisement was a mere corrigendum and could not be treated as fresh Notification.
7. The fact that the number of vacancies were increased or that the mode of selection i.e. written examination was introduced did not in any manner supersede the previous Notification (dated 12.01.2015). The second public notice clearly states that it modifies the existing Notification and goes on to say that the other conditions mentioned in the previous advertisement (dated 12.01.2015) would continue. One of the conditions in the advertisement dated 12.01.2015 clearly was that the candidates ought to possess the minimum age or eligible to apply for the post; the reckonable day for which it was 1.7.2015. This is also in conformity with the Rule 10 of the Collegiate Branch Rules noticed in Asha Meena (supra).
8. Rule 10 is extracted for convenience :-
"10. Age-(1) A candidate for direct recruitment to the post of Lecturer must have attained the age of 21 years and must not have attained the age of 30 years (31 years from 28-9-84) on the first day of July of the year in which the applications are invited by the Commission:
Provided that the upper age limit mentioned above-
(i) shall be relaxed by 5 years in respect of the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe and Women candidates.
(ii) shall be .......years in the case of Reserved .......the Defence Services Personnel transferred to the Reserve.
(iii) shall not apply in the case of an ex-prisoner who had served under the Government on a substantive basis on any post before conviction and was eligible for appointment under the rules.(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 04:38:19 AM)
(4 of 4) [SAW-698/2019]
(iv) shall be relaxable by a period equal to the term of imprisonment served in the case of an ex-prisoner who was not over age before his conviction and was eligible for appointment under the rules.
(v) notwithstanding anything contained contrary in these rules in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of the State in substantive capacity the upper age limit shall be 40 years for direct recruitment to posts filled in through the Commission by interview. This relaxation shall not apply to urgent temporary appointments.
(vi) shall be relaxed by 15 years in the case of substantive teachers in the Education Department of the Government and the Panchayat Samities subject to the limit of 3 chances.
(vii) shall be relaxed by 5 years in the case of candidates having a First Class Master's Degree or a Doctorate in the subject concerned of a University established by law in India with 5 years' experience of teaching Degree and/or Post-graduate classes in a recognized college subject to the limit three chances.
(viii) shall be 40 years for recruitment to the post of whole time lecturer in law."
9. As regards the further argument that a new condition allowing applicant-candidates to withdraw their application and to seek refund of their fees is concerned, that per se in the opinion of this Court does not make the later notice a fresh advertisement; it merely remained a corrigendum.
10. Thus, for the above reasons following the decision in Asha Meena (supra), the appeal is dismissed, as unmerited. All pending applications too are disposed of.
(G R MOOLCHANDANI),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ N.Gandhi/Aks/-26 (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 04:38:19 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)