Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ramchandra vs State & Ors on 11 May, 2017
Bench: Chief Justice, Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 253 / 2011
Ramchandra s/o Shri Pat Ram, aged about 43 years, r/o Village
Pilibanga Gaon, Tehsil Pilibangan, Distt. Hanumangarh.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary to the Government,
Department of Transport, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Depot Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation, Rajasthan, Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Appellant(s) : Mr.Rajesh Saharan
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Harish Purohit
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 11/05/2017
1. The appellant has preferred this special appeal challenging the orders dated July 24, 2008 and January 07, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1079/2005 and S.B.Civil Writ Review Petition No.2672/2010 (DR-J), whereby the writ petition as well as the review petition have been dismissed.
2. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by this Court, are that the appellant/writ petitioner was an OBC Category candidate born on July 10, 1968. The appellant aspired for getting the job of Driver in pursuance of advertisement No.266/2002-03, but the (2 of 3) [SAW-253/2011] advertisement did not culminate into a proper selection process and fresh advertisement was issued on December 16, 2005, which rendered the appellant/writ petitioner overage.
3. The learned Single Judge has held the appellant/writ petitioner entitled for age relaxation, as per the previous precedent law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment reported as 2005 (2) CDR 1726 (Raj.) (DB) :
Mahaveer Prasad Vs. Union of India & Ors., but has categorically dismissed the writ petition, as the appellant/writ petitioner failed to apply in pursuance of the advertisement dated December 16, 2005. The review application, in which the delay of 608 days was condoned, but on merits no case was found to be made out, as the writ petitioner had failed to apply in pursuance of the advertisement dated December 16, 2005.
4. The prayer clause in the writ petition, as quoted in the order of the learned Single Judge dated January 7, 2011 is as follows:
"iv. By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondent No.3 may be directed to take his form and sent to the Head Office not to cancel his form on the ground of age."
Thus, it was the writ petitioner's case that he had not applied in pursuance of the advertisement dated December 16, 2005. The writ petition as well as the review petition have been dismissed only on the count that the basic requirement for participation in the selection process was to apply in pursuance of the advertisement dated December 16, 2005 and the appellant having failed to do so, was not entitled to get the age relaxation in light (3 of 3) [SAW-253/2011] of the precedent law laid down in Mahaveer Prasad Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra).
5. In light of the aforesaid discussion and taking into consideration that any indulgence in respect of the advertisement dated December 16, 2005, which further culminated into final selection process after a period of twelve years, was not justified.
6. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)CJ. Skant/-