Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rahul Kumar Gautam vs State (Medical And Health Dep)Ors on 6 September, 2012
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9011/2012 (Rahul Kumar Gautam Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.) AND S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10650/2012 (Ashwini Kumar Sharma & Ors. Versus State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of Order : 06th September, 2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Ram Pratap Saini ] Mr.Hari Kishan Sharma, ], for the petitioners. Dr.V.B.Sharma, Addl.GC. Mrs.Shruti Dixit, Dy.GC. Mr.M.A.Khan ] Mr.Ashok Mishra ], for the respondent/s. BY THE COURT:
It is a case where petitioner are overage for appointment to the post of Pharmacist. Few petitioners made representation for grant of age relaxation but it has been rejected and few other petitioners are claiming benefit of age relaxation on the ground that last selection to the post Pharmacist was held in the year 1982, thus present selection is after lapse of 29 years, hence, consideration of representation should have been after taking note of the aforesaid.
Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submit that post of Pharmacist has been introduced for the first time vide Notification dated 24th November, 2011. It is by way of amendment in Rajasthan Medical Health Subordinate Service Rules 1965 (for short Rules of 1965). In the aforesaid background, very basis taken by the petitioner for age relaxation is not made out because selection to the post of Pharmacist are not held after 29 years. A separate post of Pharmacist-cum-Compounder exists, however, its qualification is different than of the Pharmacist. Looking to all these reasons, petitioners are not entitled for benefit of age relaxation.
I have considered the submissions made and find that post of Pharmacist has been introduced for the first time vide Notification dated 24th November, 2011. The copy of the Notification is taken on record. The qualification given for the post is shown different than the post of Pharmacist-cum-Compounder and even, there is no difference between qualification, it is not in dispute that post of Pharmacist has been introduced by way of amendment dated 24.11.2011 itself. The advertisement was issued soon thereafter on 26th November, 2011.
In the background aforesaid, it cannot be said that selection to the post of Pharmacist are held after 29 years, thus petitioners should have been granted benefit of age relaxation. This Court while considering the similar issue has passed detailed judgment in the case of Pawan Kumar Baradiya Vs. State reported in 2012 (1) WLC (Raj.) 301 wherein taking note of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, it was held that question of relaxation in the age can be determined only by the Administration and not by the Court and in the present matter, I do not find justification to seek benefit of age relaxation.
The writ petitions so as the stay applications are dismissed accordingly.
(M.N. BHANDARI), J.
S/No.113 & 118Preety, Jr.P.A. All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Preety Asopa Jr.P.A.