Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Gajendra Kumar Saini vs R P S C Ajmer And Ors on 16 March, 2012
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Civil Writ Petition No.6741/2009 Gyanesh Shringi versus State of Rajasthan & anr SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5888/2009 Gajendra Kumar Saini versus RPSC & ors 16.3.2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr Arun Sharma Mr Neeraj Sharma for petitioners Mr Chetan Bairwa, Government Counsel for respondents BY THE COURT:
Learned counsel for petitioners submits that pursuant to the interim order, petitioners have already appeared in the interview for the post of Junior Engineer, however, their result has been kept in sealed cover. The controversy pertains to the age of the petitioners as pursuant to the advertisement at Annexure-1, a candidate was required to be not more than 37 years of age as on 1.1.2009. Petitioners were admittedly crossed the age of 37 years as on the aforesaid date yet applied for the post.
It is submitted that subsequently, Government of Rajasthan issued a Notification dated 23.9.2008 granting three years relaxation in age and otherwise petitioners are entitled to the benefit of age relaxation by the government itself as selections in question have been held after a lapse of several years thus case of the petitioners is covered by the judgment in the case of Pawan Kumar Bardiya & ors. versus State of Rajasthan & anr, SB Civil Writ Petition No.8046/2008, decided on 18.8.2011. It is, accordingly, prayed that writ petitions may be disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider their case in the light of the judgment supra. Since petitioners have already appeared for selection thus consideration needs to be more sympathetic and thereby result may be declared by the respondents.
Learned counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that the Notification dated 23.9.2008 has no application in the present matter as the advertisement herein is dated 17.5.2008 containing the last date for submission of applications as 30.6.2008 i.e. much prior to amendment in the rules. In view of the above, a person knowing it well that he is overage applied for the post by default thus should be given benefit as one cannot apply in anticipation of an amendment in the rules. In any case, petitions may be disposed of in the light of the judgment in the case of Pawan Kumar Bardiya (supra). Their cases would be considered keeping in mind observations made therein.
The learned counsel for the petitioners have made much emphasis for application of the Notification dated 23.9.2008 though it was issued much subsequent to the last date of submission of application for the post in question. It cannot be ruled out that many candidates similarly placed, like petitioners, may not have applied for the post knowing it well that they are overage, being law abiding. They cannot be discriminated now with those who applied for the post knowingly well that they are overage and one cannot anticipate amendment in the rules in future. In any case, prayer of learned counsel for petitioners is now to decide the writ petitions in the light of the judgment in the case of Pawan Kumar Bardiya (supra).
Accordingly, petitioners may submit detailed representation for seeking benefit of age relaxation. If any such representation is made, respondents are directed to consider and decide the same within a period of fifteen days of the date of receipt of representation. The consideration would be in the light of the judgment in the case of Pawan Kumar Bardiya (supra). In case of favourable consideration of the representation(s), respondents will declare result of the petitioners and if their names find place in the merit, they would be given consequential benefits.
In view of aforesaid, writ petitions stand disposed of.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW