Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Priti Tiwari vs State (Information Techno)Ors on 18 February, 2014
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.1813/2014. Priti Tiwari. VERSUS State of Rajasthan & Others. 18.02.2014. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE J.K.RANKA Mr.Pradeep Kalwania, Adv. for petitioner.
***** Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the vires of R.11 of the Rajasthan Computer State and Subordinate Service (Amendment) Rules, 2013 which relate to fixing of age of a candidate for direct recruitment by the State Government vide Notification dt.10.01.2013 in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Art.309 of the Constitution amending Rajasthan Computer State & Subordinate Service Rules, 1992.
As regards the age for direct recruitment to the post of Analyst-cum-Programmer (Deputy Director) is concerned, the minimum and maximum age, as notified by the amended notification is 21 years and 37 years respectively but at the same time for the post in question which is Programmer & Informatics Assistant, the lower and upper age limit of the candidate for direct recruitment is 21 years and 35 years respectively and that is to be looked into on the first day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of applications.
The advertisement came to be issued by the appointing authority on 25.04.2013 holding selection for the post of Informatics Assistant and apart from other conditions of eligibilities, it was one of the condition that age of applicant is to be looked into on the first day of January, 2014 and must have attained the age of 21 years and has not crossed the age of 35 years on the crucial date, fixed by the rule making authority. Indisputably, date of birth of the present petitioner, as came on record, is 05.02.1993 and she was 20 years, 10 months & 16 days as on 01.01.2014 and was not eligible to participate in the selection process which the appointing authority notified, in terms of the advertisement dt.25.04.2013.
Still knowing it fully well that the petitioner is not eligible and there is no scope of interpretation of any provisions of the terms & conditions of the advertisement and more particular, the conditions regarding age notified in the advertisement, the petitioner still filled her application form and participated in the selection process and appeared in the written examination followed by typing test and, as alleged, finally selected for the post of Informatics Assistant but when she was asked to join, it came to the notice of department that she was not eligible as on 01.01.2014 to participate in the selection process being under-age, referred the matter to the appointing authority to examine as to whether her candidature could be considered for relaxation, obviously to make her eligible in the process of selection, as grant of relaxation in minimum age, as proposed, would remove the post facto ineligibility which the applicant carried from the date of her filling the application form till her final selection. However, when the matter was referred to the appointing authority, a Committee was constituted and the Committee in its wisdom, after taking into consideration the material on record, was also of the view that the applicant was ineligible to participate in the selection process, which the department notified vide advertisement dt.25.04.2013, her case was not to be recommended and noticed by the department in its order dt.17.01.2014 and this appears to be a cause of action for the petitioner to file instant petition before this Court assailing the validity of R.11 of the Rules.
It will be relevant to quote R.11 (Age) of the Rules, which the rule making authority notified for direct recruitment by the amended notification dt.10.01.2013 to the post of Programmer & Informatics Assistant, which reads ad infra:-
11. Age.- A candidate for direct recruitment to the post of
(i) XX XX XX
(ii) Programmer and Informatics Assistant must have attained the age of 21 years and must not have attained the age of 35 years:
on the first day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of applications.
The bone of contention of counsel is that the rule making authority for the various posts in question has laid down and prescribed different age groups for holding public office and has placed certain notifications on record to show that different age groups have been provided for the posts of Assistant Jailor, Geologist & Medical Officer and certain other posts appended to the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 and taking assistance from the various posts prescribing different age groups for the applicants to participate, counsel submits that the age which has been prescribed for the post in question is wholly arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution and at least minimum age, as prescribed in the notification, of 21 years is illegal and arbitrary and it has no nexus with the object to be achieved from it and that requires interference by this Court.
Counsel further submits that in most of the posts under the State Government, minimum age is 18 years and that is considered to be an age of attaining majority and in these facts & circumstances, at least the minimum age for the post in question, which is 21 years, has no nexus and requires interference by this court.
The submission is wholly bereft of merit for the reason that different posts have different educational & other qualifications and the requirement is always open for the rule making authority to take note of and prescribe the minimum and maximum age which is required for the post in question and there cannot be any comparison or parity which the petitioner could claim in regard to the age structure of different posts appended to the relevant Service Rules and the rule making authority in its wisdom if considered it appropriate to fix minimum age for a candidate, for direct recruitment to the post in question, of 21 years and he/she must not have attained the age of 35 years, this court finds no irrationality in the decision of the rule making authority, which requires interference by this court.
As regards submission made by counsel for petitioner that action of respondents is violative of Art.14 of the Constitution, suffice it to say that once this court arrived at a conclusion that there could not be any parity, to be claimed by the petitioner, as regards the age prescribed for different posts, at least Art.14 of the Constitution has no application, as argued by the counsel and we further make it clear that Art.14 of the Constitution could be invoked when the persons are similarly situated whereas in the instant case the post in question has been notified by the respondents with different qualification & nature of experience, as required by the rule making authority and no parity amongst the posts could be claimed by the petitioner.
As regards submission made by counsel that there is a provision for grant of relaxation under the Rule, suffice it to say that ordinarily that could always be permitted in exceptional cases but here is a case before the court where the petitioner knowing it fully well that she is not eligible to participate in the selection process, still participated and after being selected took a 'U' turn and asked the State Government for granting age relaxation to her, in our considered view, it is nothing but putting a cart before the horse and the petitioner wants post facto sanctioned to overcome ineligibility which she was carrying from the vary inception and that conduct cannot be acknowledged by this court.
Consequently, in our considered view, the petition is wholly bereft of merit and accordingly stands dismissed.
(J.K.RANKA),J. (AJAY RASTOGI),J. All corrections made in judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. Solanki DS, Sr.P.A.