Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shahjad Khan vs State (Personnel Dept) Ors on 14 December, 2017
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15619 / 2016
Shahjad Khan S/o Sabuddin Khan, Aged About 35 Years, Agrasen
Colony, Gumat-Bari, District Dholpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department of
Personal, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.\
2. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary Home Govt. of
Rajasthan, Secretariat Jaipur
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
Chairman
4. The Director General of Police, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur
----Respondents
Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15066 / 2016
1. Jai Prakash S/o Ummed Singh, Aged About 30 Years, V/P Uchain Tehsil Roopwas, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.)
2. Chakravarti Singh Deora S/o Kheem Singh Deora, Aged About 24 Years, Post Palri (M), Tehsil Sheogan, Distt. Sirohi (Raj.)
3. Ganpat Singh Rathore S/o Jabbar Singh Rathore, Aged About 27 Years, Post Barloot, Via Jawal, Tehsil & District Sirohi (Raj.)
4. Rajendra Prasad Yadav S/o Shri Manohar Lal Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, Village Baghaka, Post Almshah, Tehsil Nagar, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.)
5. Shankar Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Hanuman Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 30 Years, VPO Antri, Via Sanwali Distt. Sikar (Raj.)
6. Narendra Kumar S/o Yadram Singh, Aged About 31 Years, Village Soopa, Tehsil Bayana Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.)
7. Vishamber Singh S/o Shri Chhagan Lal, Aged About 30 Years, 5-6, Flat No. 13, Ankuj Apartment Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
8. Deepak Munjral S/o Shri Devendra Kumar Munjral, Aged About 26 Years, 4-f-38, Jawahar Nagar, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)
9. Sunita D/o Shri Harlal Singh Jakhar, Aged About 34 Years, House No. H-15, Police Line Kota (Raj.)
10. Rahul Arora S/o Kishan Lal, Aged About 31 Years, Presently (2 of 5) [ CW-15619/2016] Posted At Police Line, Jaipur (Raj.)
11. Vinod Kumar S/o Amee Lal, Aged About 31 Years, VPO Pahadsar, Tehsil Rajgarh, Distt. Churu (Raj.)
12. Vikas Kumar S/o Narendra Kumar, Aged About 28 Years, Ward No. 17, Near Shiv Mandir, 8-PSD-B, Ganganagar (Raj.)
13. Pushpendra Singh S/o Devi Singh, Aged About 25 Years, C- 531, Sidhardh Nagar, Sawai Gatore, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur
14. Dinesh Das S/o Sh. Balram Das, Aged About 30 Years, V&P Basera Tehsil & District Pratapgarh (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel,govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary Home, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Chairman
4. The Director General of Police, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur
----Respondents _____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Dr. A.S. Khangarot, AGC.
Ms. Vandana Sharma, Dy. G.C. for Mr. G.S. Gill, AAG.
_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MAHESHWARI Judgment 14/12/2017 The present writ petitions have been filed by the prospective candidates who intended to participate in the selection process initiated by the RPSC for the post of Sub-Inspector, the post (3 of 5) [ CW-15619/2016] which is included in the schedule appended to the Rajasthan Police Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1989 ('the Rules') notified vide advertisement dt. 05.10.2016.
The bone of contention of the petitioner was that omnibus amendment has been made whereby relaxation to the extent of three years has been granted by the State Government vide Notification dt. 23.09.2008 in all 85 (approx.) different Service Rules annexed thereto and it appears that the Rules of 1989 due to inadvertence remain unnoticed and if the recruitment in the previous year was not held the candidates are entitled for age relaxation in the regular selection to the extent of three years, as amended in other Service Rules by omnibus amendment made under provisions to Art.309 of the Constitution of India.
After the notices of present petition came to be served reply to the petition has been filed at the same time to meet out the present exigency and to safe guard the interest of the candidates who intended to participate in pursuant to the advertisement Annex.-2, the appointing authority in exercise of its power u/R.11A(3) granted them relaxation by three years keeping in view the parity with the notification dt. 23.09.2008 vide its order dt. 22.06.2017, copy of which has been placed on record for our perusal which reads as infra:
"jktLFkku ljdkj x`g ¼xzqi&1½ foHkkx Øekad% Ik- 2¼58½ x`g&1@2016 t;iqj] fnukad egkfuns'kd iqfyl] jktLFkku] t;iqjA (4 of 5) [ CW-15619/2016] fo"k;%& mi fujh{kd iqfyl la;qDr izfr;ksxh ijh{kk 2016 esa mijh vk;q lhek esa NwV iznku djus ckcrA lUnHkZ%& vkidk i= Øekad &i&3¼6½ iq-Qks-@m-fu-@vuq- 3@2014@ikVZ&2@30] fnukad 20-01-2017 egksn;] mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr lUnfHkZr i= ds Øe esa funsZ'kkuqlkj ys[k gS fd jktLFkku iqfyl v/khuLFk lsok fu;e] 1989 ds fu;e 11 ¼,½ ds ijUrqd ¼3½ ds izko/kkukUrxZr vkiokfnd izdj.k ekurs gq, iqfyl mi fujh{kd@ IykVwu dek.Mj lh/kh HkrhZ o"kZ 2016 ds fy, mijh vk;q lhek esa 03 o"kZ dk f'kfFkyu iznku djus dh Lohd`fr ,rn~ }kjk iznku dh tkrh gSA LkkFk gh ;g Hkh funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd mDr f'kfFkyu iznku fd;s tkus ds QyLo:i mDr HkrhZ gsrq vkosnu i= izLrqr djus dh frfFk c<kbZ tkosa rkfd vk;q esa f'kfFkyu ls ik= gksus okys laHkkfor vH;FkhZ vkosnu izLrqr dj ldsA dkfeZd foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 23-09-2008 ds izko/kku dk lekos'k jktLFkku iqfyl v/khUkLFk lsok fu;e] 1989 esa djus gsrq ,oa fo| eku fu;e 11 ¼,½ ds ijUrqd ¼3½ dks foyksfir djus gsrq fu;eksa esa la'kks/ku dk izLrko e; izk:i rS;kj dj vfoyEc bl foHkkx dks fHktokus dk Je djsA ;g Lohd`fr dkfeZd foHkkx dh vkbZ-Mh- la[;k 619@dkfeZd@d&2@17 fnukad 05-06-2017 ds }kjk iznRr lgefr dh vuqlj.k esa tkjh dh tkrh gSA Hkonh;
¼psru nsoMk½ la;qDr 'kklu lfpo] iqfyl"
At least the present complaint to the petitioner have been noticed by the Government and at the same time it has been recommended by the appointing authority to consider and make corresponding necessary amendments under the Rules of 1989 on the pari meteria terms which the Govt. had noticed, reference of which has been made by us.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that atleast in the light of the present order dt. 22.6.2017, the grievance of the petitioners (5 of 5) [ CW-15619/2016] has been noticed by the Government but in absence of any amendment being carried out under the Rules, 1989 it may not serve the fate of the prospective candidates to claim relaxation in the future years vacancies.
Since the recommendation has been made by the appointing authority to the State Government, it is always expected from the State Govt., which is the rule making authority, to revisit and take a decision keeping in view the recommendations made in the order dt. 22.06.2017 in the right earnest which may serve the fate of the prospective candidate who intends to participate for appointment under the Rules of 1989.
The present writ petitions stand disposed of with the observations supra.
(DEEPAK MAHESHWARI),J. (AJAY RASTOGI),J. R.mathur/Arun/28-29