Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ashok Kumar vs State & Ors on 11 April, 2017
Bench: Chief Justice, Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 277/ 2017
Ashok Kumar s/o Shri Shrichand, age 43 years, b/c Jat, r/o Village
& Post Harpalu Ramdhan, Tehsil Sadalpur, District Churu.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Education Department,
Bikaner.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Education Department,
Bikaner.
4. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer through Secretary.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Rakesh Arora with Mr.Vinay Arora
For Respondent(s) :
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Judgment 11/04/2017
1. The appellant/writ petitioner has preferred this special appeal against the order dated January 16, 2017 passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.10933/2015 (Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on account of the fact that the appellant/writ petitioner was not eligible for the age relaxation in (2 of 3) [SAW-277/2017] the recruitment process for PTI Gr.-II & Gr.-III.
2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by this Court, are that the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued an advertisement dated September 18, 2013 for the post of PTI Gr.II & Gr.III under the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971. The respondents passed an order on September 01, 2015 rejecting the candidature of the appellant/writ petitioner by declaring him ineligible due to overage. The date of birth of the appellant is October 03, 1972.
3. As per the requirement of the advertisement, the upper age limit for the general category candidates was 35 years, which was extendable upto five years for the candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes (OBC). The appellant attained the age of 40 years on October 03, 2012. The last recruitment had taken place in 2011, and since there was no recruitment in the year 2012, therefore, the appellant was entitled for the age relaxation of one year, as the advertisement was issued in the year 2013, and the appellant was eligible for the first year which is 2012, but not for the second year when the advertisement was issued i.e.in the year 2013 being an OBC candidate.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner and have also perused the record of the case.
5. The appellant has attained the age of 41 years on October 03, 2013, whereas the cut off date as per the advertisement dated September 18, 2013 was January 01, 2014, and therefore, the appellant on January 01, 2014 was more than (3 of 3) [SAW-277/2017] 41 years of age. Thus, even if the permissible age relaxation of one year was to be considered, then also the appellant shall be entitled only if the cut off upper age limit would have been October 03, 2013, which in the present case is admittedly January 01, 2014.
6. In light of the aforesaid discussion, the appellant being overage by more than one year two months, being not entitled for more than one year of age relaxation on account of the recruitment not being held in the year 2012, would still be ineligible on account of being overage as even after the age relaxation, the appellant shall be disqualified due to overage upper limit, that should have been upto 41 years on January 01, 2014 as per the advertisement dated September 18, 2013. Thus, we find no reason to grant indulgence in the impugned order dated January 16, 2017.
7. In the result, the present special appeal is dismissed. (DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)CJ. Skant/-