Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The Secreatry, The Rajasthan ... vs Bheem Singh Udawat on 1 December, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:50564-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1114/2022
The Secreatry, The Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial
Service Selection Board, Premises Of State Agriculture
Management Institute, Durgapura, Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Bheem Singh Udawat S/o Roop Singh Udawat, House No.
176/25, Shiv Shakti Nagar, Nandari, Banar Road, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Panchayati Raj And Rural Development,
Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Department Of Panchayati Raj And Rural
Development, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Priyanshu Gopa
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.L. Deora
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA Judgment
1. Date of conclusion of arguments 18.09.2025
2. Date on which judgment was reserved 18.09.2025
3. Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced: Full judgment
4. Date of pronouncement 01.12.2025 Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. The present D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) has been preferred claiming the following relief:
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that their D.B. Special Appeal writ petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned order dated 11.10.2022 passed by Hon'ble Singh judge in S.B.C.W.P.No. 13347/2017 (Bheem Singh (Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:36:25 PM) (Downloaded on 03/12/2025 at 08:59:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50564-DB] (2 of 13) [SAW-1114/2022] Udawat V/s State of Rajasthan & Ors.) may kindly be set aside.
Any other appropriate order or relief which their Hon'ble court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of their case may kindly also be passed in favour of the humble appellant."
2. The brief facts of the case, as emerging from the record, are that the Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board issued an advertisement dated 21.09.2016 for direct recruitment to the post of Librarian Grade-III. The advertisement prescribed the general upper-age limit of 35 years as on 01.01.2017, with a further relaxation of three years in terms of the State Government notification dated 23.09.2008. In respect of certain special categories, including Ex-Servicemen, separate upper-age limits were notified under clause 8 of the advertisement, wherein the maximum age prescribed for Ex- Servicemen was 50 years.
2.1. The respondent-writ petitioner applied under the Ex- Servicemen category and appeared in the written examination held on 13.11.2016. Upon declaration of the result dated 28.06.2017, the respondent secured 124.1072 marks, which was the exact cut-off prescribed for the Ex-Servicemen category, and his roll number appeared in the list of provisionally selected candidates.
2.2. The respondent was thereafter called for document verification on 11.07.2017. During the verification process, the Board found the respondent to be 51 years and 6 months of age as on 01.01.2017, and therefore beyond the upper-age limit of 50 (Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:36:25 PM) (Downloaded on 03/12/2025 at 08:59:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50564-DB] (3 of 13) [SAW-1114/2022] years prescribed for Ex-Servicemen under clause 8(8) of the advertisement. On such ground, his candidature was not included in the final select list.
2.3. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent-writ petitioner preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13347/2017 challenging the denial of appointment, inter alia contending that the relaxation of three years--granted to all applicants on account of no recruitment being held in the preceding three years--was also available to Ex- Servicemen, thereby extending their upper-age limit from 50 to 53 years.
2.4. The learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the advertisement and the appended clarification, held that the relaxation of three years was applicable to all candidates irrespective of category, and consequently held the respondent- writ petitioner to be within the permissible age limit. The writ petition was accordingly allowed and a direction was issued to accord appointment, subject to eligibility, with notional benefits.
3. Mr. Priyansh Gopa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-Board submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to correctly appreciate clause 8 of the advertisement dated 21.09.2016, particularly the scheme of age relaxation. It was submitted that the advertisement clearly prescribed a general upper-age limit of 35 years as on 01.01.2017, extendable to 38 years only by virtue of the notification dated 23.09.2008; however, for certain special categories, including Ex-Servicemen, a distinct and independent upper-age limit was separately provided.
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:36:25 PM) (Downloaded on 03/12/2025 at 08:59:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50564-DB] (4 of 13) [SAW-1114/2022] 3.1. It was further submitted that clause 8(8) of the advertisement explicitly fixes the upper-age limit for Ex- Servicemen at 50 years, subject only to an additional two-year relaxation for recipients of war/Valour distinctions, and that such upper-age limit constitutes a complete code for the said category. The appellant asserts that the general relaxation of three years on account of the recruitment not being conducted in the preceding three years cannot be superimposed upon a special-category age limit.
3.2. Learned counsel submitted that the notes appended to clause 8 clarify that age relaxations under the advertisement are non- cumulative, and that a candidate cannot claim more than one relaxation simultaneously. Therefore, an Ex-Serviceman who already enjoys the benefit of an enhanced upper-age limit of 50 years cannot claim any additional relaxation under the general three-year extension.
3.3. It was further contended that the respondent-writ petitioner admittedly possessed the age of 51 years and 6 months as on 01.01.2017, and was therefore beyond the prescribed upper-age limit of 50 years for the Ex-Servicemen category. Once the age bar was crossed, the appellant was legally precluded from including him in the final select list, notwithstanding his marks in the written examination.
3.4. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge has misread the advertisement by treating the general three-year relaxation as applicable across categories, contrary to the explicit (Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:36:25 PM) (Downloaded on 03/12/2025 at 08:59:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50564-DB] (5 of 13) [SAW-1114/2022] stipulation that special-category age relaxations operate independently and cannot be combined. It was therefore urged that the impugned order suffers from manifest error and has resulted in granting eligibility to a candidate who was otherwise age-barred.
3.5. With these submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prays that the impugned judgment dated 11.10.2022 be set aside.
4. Per Contra, Mr. M.L. Deora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-writ petitioner submitted that the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the scheme of age relaxation under the advertisement dated 21.09.2016, and the present appeal proceeds on a misconstruction of clause 8. It was submitted that the advertisement contemplates three independent components under the head of "Age":
(i) the minimum and maximum age prescribed for all candidates;
(ii) special-category relaxations (including Ex-Servicemen); and
(iii) a general relaxation of three years granted to all candidates on account of the recruitment not having taken place during the preceding three years.
4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent falls under the Ex-Servicemen category and was therefore entitled to the special upper-age limit of 50 years prescribed for Ex- Servicemen. In addition, the notification dated 23.09.2008, expressly incorporated in clause 8, mandates that where no recruitment has been held in the last three years, all applicants, regardless of category, shall be entitled to an additional three (Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:36:25 PM) (Downloaded on 03/12/2025 at 08:59:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50564-DB] (6 of 13) [SAW-1114/2022] years' relaxation. It was urged that this general relaxation is not tied to any particular reserved category, but is based on an objective circumstance applicable uniformly across the recruitment.
4.2. It was next submitted that neither the advertisement nor the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-Servicemen) Rules, 1988 contain any expression such as "non-cumulative", "mutually exclusive", or "one relaxation only", which could disentitle an Ex- Serviceman from availing both (i) the special-category age limit, and (ii) the general three-year relaxation. The appellant's plea of non-cumulation was therefore stated to be unfounded and contrary to the plain text.
4.3. With respect to the reliance placed upon Alsa Ram v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, learned counsel submitted that the said judgment is entirely inapplicable. The controversy in Alsa Ram concerned two special-category relaxations being claimed cumulatively--namely, relaxation as an in-service candidate and relaxation for belonging to the Scheduled Caste category. Both were category-based relaxations. The Court held that dual special-category relaxations cannot be combined. 4.4. In distinction, learned counsel submitted that the present case involves the respondent claiming:
(i) the special-category upper-age limit of 50 years for Ex-
Servicemen; and
(ii) a general relaxation of three years applicable to all candidates due to non-conduct of the examination for three years.
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:36:25 PM) (Downloaded on 03/12/2025 at 08:59:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50564-DB] (7 of 13) [SAW-1114/2022] It was urged that these two relaxations operate in separate spheres, and therefore, Alsa Ram has no bearing on the present matter.
4.5. Learned counsel also submitted that the learned Single Judge adopted the only harmonious and reasonable interpretation of clause 8, namely, that the age limit for Ex-Servicemen would be 50 + 3 = 53 years, in view of the general relaxation available to all applicants. The respondent, being 51 years and 6 months as on 01.01.2017, thus squarely fell within the prescribed age limit. 4.6. It was additionally submitted that the respondent secured the exact cut-off marks of 124.1072 for the Ex-Servicemen category, was the only candidate meeting the cut-off, was provisionally selected, and successfully underwent document verification. The denial of appointment on an erroneous age interpretation was therefore arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
4.7. With these submissions, learned counsel for the respondent- writ petitioner prayed that the appeal be dismissed and the judgment dated 11.10.2022 be upheld.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
6. This Court notes that the central issue which arises for determination is whether, under the advertisement dated 21.09.2016, an Ex-Serviceman candidate could lawfully claim (i) the special upper-age limit of 50 years prescribed for Ex- Servicemen, and simultaneously (ii) the general three-year (Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:36:25 PM) (Downloaded on 03/12/2025 at 08:59:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50564-DB] (8 of 13) [SAW-1114/2022] relaxation granted on account of non-holding of recruitment during the preceding years, so as to contend that the effective upper-age limit for Ex-Servicemen stood extended to 53 years.
7. This Court observes that the advertisement in question contained a three-tier structure under the head "Age": first, the minimum and maximum age ordinarily applicable; second, special age prescriptions and relaxations for specified categories, including Ex-Servicemen governed by the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-Servicemen) Rules, 1988; and third, a general three-year relaxation traceable to the notification dated 23.09.2008, on account of the examination not being held in the preceding three years. The special provision for Ex-Servicemen, in terms of clause 8(8), fixed the upper-age ceiling at 50 years, with the further rider under the Ex-Servicemen Rules that, even after relaxation, the permissible age would not exceed 50 years. 7.1. This Court further observes that the advertisement as well as the governing Ex-Servicemen Rules were structured on a non- cumulative paradigm, i.e., an Ex-Serviceman was granted a higher, self-contained upper-age limit of 50 years as a complete code for that category. The general three-year relaxation under the DOP notification of 23.09.2008 was intended to operate vis-à- vis the ordinary upper-age limit for general candidates, and not to enlarge a separately codified special-category ceiling. 7.2. This Court finds that in the recent judgment of this Court in State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Dr. Mohd. Sajid & Ors., (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1128/2024 (lead case) decided on (Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:36:25 PM) (Downloaded on 03/12/2025 at 08:59:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50564-DB] (9 of 13) [SAW-1114/2022] 09.09.2025, along with connected appeals (including D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1123/2024 and others), wherein the question of cumulative versus non-cumulative age relaxation under the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules, 1973, and the DOP Notification No.F.7(6) DOP/A-II/2008 Dated 23-09-08, was exhaustively examined.
7.3. In the said decision, this Court, while analysing Rule 9 of Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules, 1973, and the very same DOP notification dated 23.09.2008, held that: (i) each relaxation carved out for a particular class (OBC, contract employee, ex-serviceman, etc.) has its own policy rationale; (ii) cumulative aggregation of such relaxations is not the norm but an exception; (iii) unless the Rules themselves expressly provide for cumulative benefit, the Court cannot read such entitlement into the scheme; and (iv) where the Rules are silent but the advertisement clearly stipulates that relaxations are non-cumulative, the advertisement governs and must be given effect to. This Court had succinctly summarized the legal position to the effect that if the Rule is speaking, the Rule prevails; if silent, the advertisement prevails; and in either situation, cumulative relaxation cannot be inferred without an express mandate. 7.4. This Court also notes that in Alsa Ram Meghwal v. RPSC & Anr., (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 1141/2008 (Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:36:25 PM) (Downloaded on 03/12/2025 at 08:59:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50564-DB] (10 of 13) [SAW-1114/2022] decided on 29.04.2016), a Hon'ble Division Bench negatived a claim for cumulative relaxation where an in-service candidate simultaneously sought relaxation as a reserved-category candidate. The Court treated the special in-service upper-age prescription as a complete code for that class and upheld a stipulation that only one relaxation could be availed. The same principle was later followed by the learned Single Judge in Dhuleshwar Ghogra v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16192/2022, where the Court gave a concrete example of a Scheduled Caste woman working on contract and demonstrated how cumulative aggregation of multiple relaxations would virtually nullify the age-norm itself. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the judgment in Dhuleshwar Ghogra (supra) is reproduced as under:
"For example, if a Scheduled Caste woman candidate is working with the respondent-Department on contractual basis, then as per the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners, she is required to be given relaxation in upper age limit of 18 years (10 yrs. for SC Category, 5 yrs. for working on contractual basis & 3 yrs. for not conducting recruitment) i.e. upto the age of 53 years (35 yrs. + 10 yrs. + 5 yrs. + 3 yrs.). The intention of the legislature is not to be taken in such a fashion that it breaches the basic and fundamental principle of consideration of the age as provided in the rule itself which clearly prescribes the age of a candidate to be considered between 18-35 years only and proviso provides for certain relaxations in certain conditions."
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:36:25 PM) (Downloaded on 03/12/2025 at 08:59:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50564-DB] (11 of 13) [SAW-1114/2022] 7.5. This Court is further fortified by the exposition of law by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rachna v. Union of India, (2021) 5 SCC 638, wherein it has been held that matters of reservation and relaxation are essentially policy choices within the domain of the executive and rule-making authority, and that courts cannot rewrite or expand those policies, save where they are patently arbitrary or violative of constitutional guarantees. Likewise, in Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission, (2006) 9 SCC 507, and Ashish Kumar v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 55, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that statutory recruitment rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution prevail over contrary conditions in advertisements, and that the "rules of the game" cannot be altered mid-way. 7.6. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts at hand, this Court observes that the scheme of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-Servicemen) Rules, 1988, read with clause 8(8) of the advertisement, reveals a deliberate legislative and policy design: Ex-Servicemen are granted a higher, but capped, upper-age limit of 50 years. The proviso under the Ex-Servicemen Rules itself clarifies that even after relaxation, if the age crosses 50 years, the upper-age limit of 50 years alone shall apply. To then engraft an additional three-year relaxation on the strength of the general DOP notification dated 23.09.2008 would be to supplant rather than interpret the scheme, and would directly defeat the 50-year cap consciously enacted for that class.
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:36:25 PM) (Downloaded on 03/12/2025 at 08:59:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50564-DB] (12 of 13) [SAW-1114/2022] 7.7. This Court, therefore, finds that the general three-year relaxation contemplated on account of non-holding of recruitment in the preceding years primarily operates upon the ordinary upper- age limit prescribed. It does not, in the absence of express words, enlarge the separately codified upper-age limit for Ex-Servicemen. To hold otherwise would permit cumulative aggregation of distinct relaxations, a course specifically declined in Alsa Ram Meghwal (supra) and doctrinally rejected in Dhuleshwar Ghogra (supra) and the recent Division Bench decision in Dr. Mohd. Sajid (supra). 7.8. This Court further observes that the learned Single Judge, in the impugned order dated 11.10.2022, proceeded on the premise that the clarification appended to clause 8 "naturally" entitled the Ex-Servicemen category also to add the three-year relaxation to the 50-year ceiling and thus arrive at a composite limit of 53 years. In light of the legal position now crystallised by this COurt in the Dr. Mohd. Sajid batch(supra), and the earlier Hon'ble Division Bench ruling in Alsa Ram Meghwal (supra), such an interpretation cannot be sustained. The Ex-Servicemen ceiling of 50 years is a special and self-contained prescription, and the three-year relaxation cannot be superimposed upon it. 7.9. On the admitted facts, the respondent-writ petitioner was 51 years and 6 months of age as on 01.01.2017, and therefore had clearly crossed the maximum upper-age limit of 50 years applicable to Ex-Servicemen. The mere fact that he secured marks equal to the cut-off and was provisionally called for document (Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:36:25 PM) (Downloaded on 03/12/2025 at 08:59:44 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:50564-DB] (13 of 13) [SAW-1114/2022] verification does not confer a right to appointment contrary to the eligibility criteria.
7.10. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the learned Single Judge erred in reading the general three-year relaxation into the Ex-Servicemen ceiling and thereby treating the respondent-writ petitioner as eligible up to 53 years. The impugned judgment, to that extent, suffers from an error of law and cannot be allowed to stand.
7.11.For the foregoing reasons, the present D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) is allowed. The judgment dated 11.10.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13347/2017 (Bheem Singh Udawat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) is quashed and set aside.
7.12. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH
BHATI),J
50-SKant/-
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:36:25 PM)
(Downloaded on 03/12/2025 at 08:59:44 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)