Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jawahar Singh vs State Of Raj And Ors on 16 January, 2023
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11153/2018
1. Satpal Katariya S/o Brij Lal Katariya, Aged about 37
years, R/o Ward No.10, House No.1/18 Rajasthan
Housing Board Colony Suratgarh, Pin Code - 335804,
District Sriganganagar Rajasthan
2. Kaptan Singh Meena S/o Ramswaroop, aged about 35
years, R/o Village and Post Shaharakar Tehsil Todabhim,
District Karauli (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary
Department of Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission through its
Secretary, Ajmer Rajasthan
3. Superintendent of Directorate Prison, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Director General, Directorate Jail Department, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.23655/2017 Jawahar Singh S/o Jagdish Prasad, aged about 30 years, R/o Halena Tehsil Weir District Bharatpur Rajasthan
----Petitioner Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary Department of Home, Govt. Secetrait Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, through its Secretary, Ajmer Rajasthan
3. Superintendent of Directorate Prison, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Director General Directorate Jail Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.828/2018 Updesh Singh S/o Kan Singh, aged about 31 years, R/o E-2, Vasundhara Vihar, Bajrang Nagar, Kota Rajasthan (Downloaded on 19/01/2023 at 11:54:44 PM) (2 of 6) [CW-11153/2018]
----Petitioner Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Ajmer Rajasthan
3. Superintendent of Directorate Prison, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. Director General, Directorate Jail Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.T.C. Vyas, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.M.F. Baig, Adv.
Mr.P.S. Naruka, Adv. for
Mr.Rupin Kala, Govt. Counsel.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
16/01/2023
These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners for considering their cases for appointment on the post of Assistant Jailor. The petitioners had participated in pursuance of advertisement dated 02.05.2013, whereby the Rajasthan Public Service Commission ('RPSC') invited applications on different posts including the post of Assistant Jailor.
The eligibility conditions were prescribed in the said advertisement for considering age of the eligible candidate. The candidates were required to be of minimum 18 years and maximum of 26 years of age as on 01.01.2014. The said advertisement also contained a note, whereby it was made clear to the candidates that for calculating the age, the relevant relaxation of three years was to be granted as last examination held in 2008. The relevant date for reckoning the eligibility was (Downloaded on 19/01/2023 at 11:54:44 PM) (3 of 6) [CW-11153/2018] 01.01.2009 and those candidates who became overage on account of not holding the examination, their age was to be counted as on 01.01.2010 and such maximum benefit of three years of age was to be given.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were in fact entitled to be considered in accordance with age as per the said notification appended to the advertisement and when their cases were not considered, the petitioners approached this Court and their writ petitions came to be decided by an order dated 03.04.2017, whereby direction was given to consider such relaxation as per Rule 49 of the Rajasthan Jails Subordinate Service Rules, 1998 (hereafter 'the Rules of 1998').
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents arbitrarily rejected the claim of the petitioners by an order dated 16.09.2017 and as such, the petitioners have been forced to file the present batch of writ petitions challenging the said order dated 16.09.2017.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondents have always extended the benefit of age relaxation to all those candidates, who were overage, at the time of last recruitment conducted by the RPSC and during intervening period if no examination was conducted, such relaxation was granted to the candidates and as such, the advertisement which was issued also contained the same condition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the respondents have not applied their mind in the present facts of the case and only on account of selection being already (Downloaded on 19/01/2023 at 11:54:44 PM) (4 of 6) [CW-11153/2018] made and as such affecting the rights of other candidates, the representations have been rejected in arbitrary manner.
Learned counsel further submitted that Rule 49 of the Rules of 1998 has only been inserted for considering the cases of candidates, who become overage on account of not holding the examination and there is power conferred with the Appointing Authority for relaxing the age, however, the same power has not been exercised in a proper manner.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC Mr.M.F. Baig submitted that grievances of the petitioners, were already taken note of, by the Authorities and accordingly, they have rejected the representations filed by the petitioners and as such, the petitioners may not be permitted to agitate the matter before this Court.
Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the initial advertisement which contained a note relating to grant relaxation of three years was withdrawn by subsequent corrigendum as the same was not to be applied to the Subordinate Jail Services and as such, minimum and maximum age as prescribed in the original advertisement, was to be considered by the respondents.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the omnibus Service Rule which was amended by the State Government by notification dated 23.09.2008, did not include the Subordinate Jail Services as well as Police Subordinate Services and as such, benefit claimed by the candidates on account of becoming overage by three years, cannot be extended to these services.
(Downloaded on 19/01/2023 at 11:54:44 PM)
(5 of 6) [CW-11153/2018] I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
This Court finds that initially the petitioners had filed the writ petitions before this Court and direction was given to raise their grievance before the Authorities for relaxation of age.
This Court finds that the representations of the petitioners have been decided by an order dated 16.09.2017 and cogent reason has been assigned for rejecting the claim of the petitioners as Rule 49 of Rules of 1998, did not create any right in favour of these petitioners only on account of non holding of examination due to administrative exigency, in particular years. The Authorities have also come to conclusion that since relaxation has already been made and if overage relaxation were to be considered in respect of the candidates, who approached the Court, the rights of other candidates were also to be affected and other overage candidates were prevented from participating in the selection process.
This Court finds that the initial advertisement which was issued by the respondents contained a condition for granting age relaxation to the different services and the same also included the Subordinate Jail Services for the post of Assistant Jailor, however, the Authorities realising their mistake issued corrigendum and it was notified to all, that age relaxation which has been granted in respect of other services, cannot be accepted to the Subordinate Jail Services and as such, the Authorities rectified their initial mistake.
This Court also finds that omnibus notification dated 23.09.2008, issued relating to age relaxation in various service (Downloaded on 19/01/2023 at 11:54:44 PM) (6 of 6) [CW-11153/2018] Rules, did not include Rajasthan Subordinate Jail Services and as such, if under erroneous belief, the same relaxation was initially granted then the same would not confer any right in favour of the candidates including the present petitioners.
This Court finds that if petitioners did not fulfill the requisite age criteria at the time of making the application, no fault can be found with the respondents by not accepting the claim of the petitioners and accordingly, this Court finds petitions lack merit and the same are dismissed.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J Himanshu Soni/96-98 (Downloaded on 19/01/2023 at 11:54:45 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)