Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dau Singh Chauhan vs State Of Raj And Ors on 31 August, 2022
Author: Inderjeet Singh
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7179/2010
Dau Singh Chauhan, S/o Jetha Singh Chauhan B/c Rawat, C/o
Govt. Secondary School, Ajeetgarh, Tehsil Bheem, Dist.
Rajsamand.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department Of
Education, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission,ajmer Through
Secretary
3. Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanmay Dhand For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig Mr. S. Zakawat Ali, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 31/08/2022 Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:-
"Hence, prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and further pleased to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the selection process of School Lecturer in Economics by treating him within age and quash and set aside the impugned proviso of Clause 5 of the Corrigendum notice dated 03.02.2009 and further pleased direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of School Lecturer in Economics with all consequential benefits if he is found suitable in the selection process. For this Act of kindness, the petitioner shall ever pray."
(Downloaded on 02/09/2022 at 11:24:41 PM)
(2 of 3) [CW-7179/2010] In pursuance to the advertisement dated 10.05.2008, the petitioner applied for the post of School Lecturer (Economics).
The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents on the ground of being over- age and the respondents have not issued the advertisement for the preceding two years, therefore, he claims for relaxation of age.
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-RPSC submits that the petitioner belongs to OBC category and relaxation of five years' in the age has already been provided to him as per the Rules and as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is not entitled to double age relaxation, more particularly, in reply to the para Nos.1 & 3, it has been stated as under:-
"1.That the petitioner has applied in response to the advertisement dated 25.06.2008 for the post of Lecturer in Economics under OBC category. It is admitted case of the petitioner that he is overage as per Rules as well as as per terms and conditions of the advertisement and has already been crossed the maximum age of 35 years on dated 01.07.2007 and even by extending relaxation being a OBC category candidate of 5 years, petitioner remains 5 month and 27 days overage, therefore, he remains ineligible for the recruitment on the post of Lecturer in School Education.
3. That it is submitted that the advertisement for above post was issued on dated 18.08.2004 and by corrigendum dated 16.07.2005 and corrigendum daated 10.05.2008 the eligibility has been further extended as well as by further corrigendum dated 03.02.2009 the last date for submission of application was extended upto 06.03.2009. It is also made it clear that the candidate, who were eligible as on 01.07.2007 and (Downloaded on 02/09/2022 at 11:24:41 PM) (3 of 3) [CW-7179/2010] 01.07.2008 has been given 2 years relaxation but the petitioner was not entitled for this benefit as he was overage as on 01.07.2007, therefore, as per settled principles of the law petitioner remains overage and this writ petition is not sustainable in the eyes of law, hence, liable to be dismissed summarily."
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed; for the reasons, firstly, the petitioner has already availed the benefit of age relaxation of five years' under the OBC category, secondly, the petitioner cannot claim double benefit of age relaxation as per the Rules and as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement, lastly, the recruitment relates to the year 2008, therefore, I am not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, at such belated stage.
In that view of the matter, the present writ petition stands dismissed. All the pending applications also stand dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /57 (Downloaded on 02/09/2022 at 11:24:41 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)