Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ravindra Mohan Sharma&Ors; vs State (Personnel Department)Anr on 7 September, 2016
Author: M.N.Bhandari
Bench: M.N.Bhandari
CWP - 11808/2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11808/2016
1. Ravindra Mohan Sharma aged about 37 years s/o Bhuvan
Mohan Sharma R/o Ram Babu Pehlwan ki Gali Mandi Atal
Band Bharatpur.
2. Guru Prasad Bhargav aged about 47 years s/o Shir Sanwar
Mal Bhargav, R/o 3-E-50 Kai Narayan Vyas Colony, Bikaner
presently residing at C/o 13 Bhairav Nagar, 200 feet Bypass
Jaipur.
3. Hetram aged about 42 years s/o Bhanwar lal Swami R/o 1-E-
144/145, JVN Colony Bikaner.
4. Lokesh Kumar Charora aged about 48 years s/o Brij Kishore
Saini C-186 Tara Nagar Jhotwara, Jaipur
V E R S U S
1 State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department
of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2 The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
its Secretary.
Date of Order : 07th September, 2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.BHANDARI
Dr.Abhinav Sharma, for the petitioner(s).
BY THE COURT :
By this writ petition, a direction is sought for relaxation in age for selection on account of change in pattern, syllabus and scheme of examination for Rajasthan State and CWP - 11808/2016 2 Subordinate Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2016.
The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short "RPSC") has issued an advertisement on 28 th April, 2016. It is under the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1999 (for short "Rules of 1999").
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as and when there was a change in the pattern, syllabus or scheme of examination, the State Government had issued Notification to grant relaxation in age. It is to provide one chance to the candidates. In the year 1995, there was a change in the pattern of examination but relaxation was not given. The State Government then realised the mistake and, accordingly, a Notification was issued in the year 1999 to allow relaxation in age for appearance in the selection. Earlier also, the Notifications were issued to grant relaxation when there was a change of scheme/pattern of examination. In the year 2013, there was a change in the pattern of examination, if it is compared with that of the year 2012. In the year 2013 itself, the Government should have issued Notification to provide relaxation. The respondents have failed to do so and it amounts discrimination between similarly placed candidates. On a change in pattern of examination should be given same treatment as was given earlier in the year 1993 and in the year 1999. It is to CWP - 11808/2016 3 allow one chance of appearance in the selection. The respondents have now issued the advertisement in the year 2016, but, no relaxation is given despite change in pattern of examination. Accordingly, a direction may be given to the respondents to allow relaxation in age to petitioners for appearance in the examination and, accordingly, they should not be treated overage.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel and perused the record.
The petitioners are praying for relaxation in age for appearance in the selection to the posts under Rajasthan State Administrative and Subordinate Services. An advertisement for it was issued on 28th April, 2016. As per the terms of advertisement and the Rules, no relaxation is allowed based on change in pattern of the examination or syllabus etc. The relaxation in age is allowed only when no selection in the previous year/s was held and the candidate was within age limit in the year concerned. In the instant case, all the petitioners are overage and no Notification exists for grant of relaxation on alleged change in pattern of examination or syllabus. There is nothing on record to show change in the pattern of examination or syllabus in the year 2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention towards advertisement issued in the year 2012 and 2013. It is to indicate that in the year 2013, there was a change in the CWP - 11808/2016 4 pattern of examination. If, at all, the aforesaid argument is also considered, change in pattern of examination was in the year 2013 and, if relaxation was to be claimed then it should have been for the said examination.
It is also a fact that a direction cannot be given to the Legislature to come out with the Notification to provide relaxation in age when it has already been provided to the extent required. It remains in the domain of the Legislature to come out with the Notification to provide relaxation in age in an appropriate case. It cannot be considered to be a case of discrimination if Notification has not been issued by the State Government to allow relaxation in age for selection of the year 2016 because no such relaxation has been allowed by the State Government other than in the year 1993 and, later on, in the year 1999. It is for last more than sixteen years. It is though selections have been conducted by the RPSC from time to time.
In the light of the discussion made above, I do not find that a case is made out for grant of relief prayed in the writ petition. Hence, writ petition is dismissed.
(M.N.BHANDARI), J.
S/No.55 Preeti, P.A.