Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Harish Kumar Sharma S/O Shri Lakhan Lal ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 February, 2022
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2713/2022
Harish Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Lakhan Lal Sharma, Aged About
40 Years, R/o C-116, Jawahar Nagar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Employee Selection Board, Through Its
President, State Agriculture Management Institute
Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur - 302018.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Munesh Bhardwaj For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 23/02/2022 The petitioner has challenged the vires of rule 16 of the Rajasthan Educational (State and Subordinate) Services Rules, 2021 and corresponding condition 9 of the advertisement dated 01.02.2022 for the post of basic computer instructor/senior computer instructor. The relevant rules reads as under:-
"16. Age- A candidate for direct recruitment in the service:
(a) for the State Service Post must have attained the age of 21 years and must not have attained the age of 40 years,
(b) for Subordinate Service post must have attained the age of 18 years and must not have attained the age of 40 years, (Downloaded on 28/02/2022 at 09:02:25 PM) (2 of 4) [CW-2713/2022] On the 1st day of January, next following the last date fixed for receipt of application:
Provided that:-
(i)The upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by:-
(a) 5 years in the case of male candidate belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and More Backward Classes.
(b) 5 years in the case of woman candidates belonging to General category and Economically Weaker Sections;
(c) 10 years in the case of woman candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and More Backward Classes:
(ii) The upper age limit mentioned above shall not apply in the case of an ex-prisoner basis on any post before his/her conviction and was eligible for appointment under these rules;
(iii) The upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by a period equal to the term of imprisonment served in the case of other ex-prisoners who was not overage before his conviction and was eligible for appointment under these rules:
(iv) The upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by a period equal to the service rendered in the N.C.C. in the case of Cadet Instructors, if the resultant age does not exceed the prescribed maximum age limit by more than three years, they shall be deemed to be within the prescribed age limit;
(v) the upper age limit for person serving in connection with the affairs of the State, Panchayat Samities and Zila Parishads and in the State Public Sector Undertaking/Corporations in substantive capacity shall be 40 years;
(vi) the released Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers after release from the Army shall be deemed to be within the age limit even though they have crossed the age limit when they appear before the Commission, Board or Appointing Authority, as the case may be, had they been eligible as such at the time of their joining the Commission in the Army;
(vii) there shall be no upper age limit in the case of at the widows and divorced women;
(Downloaded on 28/02/2022 at 09:02:25 PM)
(3 of 4) [CW-2713/2022] Explanation: In the case of a widow, she will have to furnish a certificate of death of her husband from the Competent Authority and in the case of a divorce, she will have to furnish the proof of divorce.
(viii) the persons appointed temporarily to a post in the service shall be deemed to be within the age limit if they were within the age limit when they were initially appointed even though they have crossed the age limit when they appear finally before the Commission/Board/Appointing Authority and shall be allowed upto two chances had they been eligible as such, at the time of their initial appointment; and
(ix) if a candidate would have been entitled in respect of his/her age for direct recruitment in any year in which no such recruitment was held, he/she shall be deemed to be eligible in the next following recruitment, if he/she is not overage by more than 3 years."
The grievance of the petitioner is that this rule prescribes the age limit of minimum 18 years and maximum 40 years for a candidate and the date on which these conditions must be specified is 1st day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of application. According to the petitioner, he was within the upper age of 40 years on the date of advertisement as also on the last date prescribed in the said advertisement for receiving the application. However by 01.01.2023 he would have crossed the age of 40 years and thus as per the said rule he would be overage for applying the post in question. In this context the petitioner has challenged the rule which prescribes the cut off date of 1 st January next following the last date fixed in the advertisement for receiving the application.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner we find that the rule has provided a particular date as on which the candidate has to comply with the minimum and maximum age requirements. It is well settled through series of judgments of Supreme Court (Downloaded on 28/02/2022 at 09:02:25 PM) (4 of 4) [CW-2713/2022] that in absence of a prescription in the advertisement or in the recruitment rules, the date for achieving qualifications for recruitment to a post would be the last date for accepting applications. However when statutory rules prescribes otherwise, the same would prevail. In the present case, the statutory rules peg back the date for reckoning the satisfaction of age criteria as the 1st day of the year following the last date fixed for receiving the application. This may work to the advantage of some and to the disadvantage of the rest. However by that itself the rule cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. In absence of any legal defect the rule cannot be set aside as ultra vires simply because it works to the disadvantage of the petitioner.
In the result, the petition is dismissed.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
N.Gandhi/22
(Downloaded on 28/02/2022 at 09:02:25 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)