Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ambika Daiya D/O Radhakishan Daiya vs The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Chief ... on 7 January, 2019
Bench: Mohammad Rafiq, Goverdhan Bardhar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writs No. 27514/2018
1. Ambika Daiya D/o Radhakishan Daiya, Aged About 41
Years, By Caste Jat, Category Obc, Resident Of 73/56A,
Paramhans Marg, Near K.v. No. 5, Mansarovar, Jaipur
(Raj.)
2. Sheetal Kumar Sharma S/o Omprakash Sharma, Aged
About 36 Years, By Caste Bramhin, Cateogry General,
Resident Of Mohan Sadan, Behind Government School,
Dashhara Maidan, Lanka Colony, Baran, District Baran
(Raj.)
3. Abrar Ali Khan S/o Daud Ali Khan, Aged About 40 Years,
By Caste Musalman, Category Obc, Resident Of J-774
Rpa, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Ranjeet Singh S/o Daluram, Aged About 41 Years,
Category Obc, Resident Of Nehron Ki Dhani, Post Royal,
Via Khandela, District Sikar (Raj.)
5. Virendra Koshik S/o Amarnath Koshik, Aged About 36
Years, By Caste Bramhin, Category General, Resident Of
109, Marudhar Nagar, Near Dcm, Ajmer Road, Jaipur
(Raj.)
6. Raghav Acharya S/o Jagdish Chandra Sharma, Aged
About 38 Years, By Caste Bramhin, Category General,
Resident Of A-201, 202, R.k. Colony, Bhilwara (Raj.)
Presently Residing At B-151, Keshav Path, Neharu Nagar,
Panipech, Jaipur (Raj.)
7. Navalesh Acharya S/o Jagdish Chandra Sharma, Aged
About 40 Years, By Caste Bramhin, Category General,
Resident Of A-201, 202, R.k. Colony, Bhilwara (Raj.)
8. Sultan Singh S/o Bhagirathmal, Aged About 40 Years,
Category Obc, Resident Of Block N Quarter No. 841 Rpa,
Shastri Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
9. Hemant Singh S/o Motiram, Aged About 42 Years, By
Caste Jat, Category Obc, Resident Of Village Nagla
Chahar, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur, Presently Residing
At 4C, 13 Multistory, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
10. Santosh Chaudhary W/o Abhishek Singh, Aged About 40
Years, By Caste Jat, Category Obc, Resident Of B-30, Maa
Vaishav Nagar, Lalarpura, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
(2 of 4) [CW-27514/2018]
11. Pragya Pandey D/o Suresh Kumar Pandey, Aged About 41
Years, By Caste Bramhin, Category General, Resident Of
B-45, Amar Nagar, Khatipura, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Chief Secretary, Govt.
Secretariat, Janpath, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Registrar General, High Court Of Judicature For
Rajasthan, At Jodhpur, (Raj.)
3. The Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
(Rpsc), Ajmer, (Raj.)
4. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of
Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Janpath, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Avasthi. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Maloo, Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. N.K. Singhal.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR Order 07/01/2019 In this writ petition, the petitioners have approached this Court inter alia with the prayer that Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010 (for short 'the Rules of 2010') may be declared ultra vires, unconstitutional, discriminatory on the premise that State Government in all other similar Rules pertaining to different States Services has enhanced the upper age limit to compete for appointment in the case of general category from 35 years to 40 years whereas Rule 17 of the Rules of 2010 still continues to prescribe such age limit as 35 years.
(3 of 4) [CW-27514/2018] Mr. N. K. Maloo, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Rajasthan High Court submitted that during the process of receiving application forms for appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate, Rule 17 of the Rules of 2010 has been amended by Rajasthan Judicial Service (Amendment) Rules, 2018 vide notification dated 27.12.2018 in the following terms:-
"3. Amendment of rule 17.- In rule 17 of the said rules,-
(i) for the existing expression "23 years", the expression "21 years" shall be substituted;
(ii) for the existing expression "35 years", the expression "40 years" shall be substituted;
(iii) the existing proviso (ii) shall be deleted;
(iv) after the existing proviso (v), the following new proviso (vi) shall be added, namely:- "(vi) the upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed for persons with benchmark disabilities by,-
(a) 10 years for candidates belonging to General Category;
(b) 13 years for candidates belonging to Backward Classes and More Backward Classes; and
(c) 15 years for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes"; and
(v) after the proviso (vi) so added, the following explanation shall be added, namely:-
"Explanation: The relaxation in age will be admissible only in one category, mentioned in the proviso above."
Learned Senior Counsel informs that last date for receipt of application forms has been extended from 05.01.2019 to 15.01.2019 and submitted that the Amended Rule 17 now effectively redresses grievances of the petitioners and any such applications submitted by the petitioners shall be considered by the respondents as valid applications as the aforesaid Amended Rule 17 brings the petitioners within the age limit. However, this shall be the subject to scrutiny of the applications of the petitioners by the respondents and if the applications are found in (4 of 4) [CW-27514/2018] conformity with the Amended Rule 17, the same shall be considered accordingly and they shall be permitted to appear in the written examination like any other candidate, who is covered by the Amended Rule 17 and now files the online application.
In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. It would, however, be open to the petitioners, if anyone of them, wishes to file any fresh online application in accordance with the Amended Rule 17 within the period of extended last date. In that case, the respondents shall act on the online application of such petitioner or else proceed on the basis of his/her off line application.
Stay applications also stands disposed of. (GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J Manoj/117 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)