Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Vijay Pal Yadav vs State (Personnel Dept) Ors on 8 December, 2016
Bench: K.S. Jhaveri, Dinesh Mehta
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B.CIVIL WRITS NO. 15167 / 2016
Vijay Pal Yadav S/o Shri Jairam Yadav, by Caste Ahir (OBC),
Aged About 43 Years, Address: Village Mundia Khera, Post
Hamidpur, Tehsil Behror, Alwar (rajasthan)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary,
Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, (group-
II), Address: Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Rajasthan
Through Its Secretary, Address: Ajmer
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt of Rajasthan,
Address: Bikaner
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B.CIVIL WRITS No. 18724 / 2015
PREM PRAKASH SHARMA S/o Shri Gauri Shankar by caste
Brahmin, aged about 40 years, R/o Village and Post Padamara-
Khurd, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, through its
Chairman, Ajmer (Raj.).
2. The Director Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. The Commissioner, Secondary Education, Shiksha
Shankul, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
D.B.CIVIL WRITS No. 14888 / 2016
1. GIRDHARI LAL GAUR S/o Shri Shivprasad Gaur, aged
(2 of 9 )
[CW-15167/2016]
about 40 years, R/o Post-Ramsiya, Via Gacchipura, Distt.
Nagaur (Raj.).
2. Mahavir Singh Kishnawat S/o Shri Lakhban Singh
Kishnawat, aged about 44 years, R/o Village-Shyammpura,
Post-Poonia Ka Bass, Via Bissau, Distt. Jhunjhunu, (Raj.).
3. Dilip Singh Gadan S/o Shri Govind Singh Gaden Aged
about-43 years R/o Village-Bhimkhand Umand, Tehsil Kapasan,
Distt. Chittorgarh (Raj.).
4. Dataram S/o Malaram Aged about 45 years, R/o Village-
Haripura, Post Jodhpura, Via-Sarai, Tehsil-Udaipurwati, Distt.
Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
5. Rashmi Sharma S/o Hari Narayan Sharma, aged 41 years,
R/o 1094/3A, Apna Nagar, Anand Nagar Ke Samne Kishan Ganj,
Ajmer-305001.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary,
Department of Personnel, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Secondary
Education, Ajmer.
3. The Director Secondary Education Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Respondent
D.B.CIVIL WRITS No. 15934 / 2016
1. Ram Prasad Fulwaria S/o Ganga Sahai Fulwaria, aged
about 41 years, resident of Village Didwana, Tehsil Lalsot,
District Dausa, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through the Principal Secretary,
Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its
Secretary, Googhara Ghati, Ajmer.
----Respondents
__________________________________________
(3 of 9 )
[CW-15167/2016]
For Petitioners : Mr. Ashok Gaur, Senior Counsel with Mr.
Ajay Choudhary, Dr. Saugath Roy, Mr.
Vigyan Shah & Mr. Illiyash Khan on behalf
of Mr. Tanveer Ahamad.
For Respondents : S.K. Gupta, AAG , S.N. Kumawat & Mr.
M.F. Baig.
__________________________________________
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
Per Hon'ble Jhaveri J.
08/12/2016
1. In all these petitions, the petitioners have approached this
Court, praying for the following relief:
DB Civil Writ Petition No.15167/2016
"1. To grant age relaxation 15 years to
the post of School Lecturer in terms of
advertisement no.5/secondary education
2015-16 issued on 16.10.2015 by
respondent RPSC, and to give appointment
in the OBC category as per the merit
secured by him in subject History with all
consequential benefits and the Provisio(i)
of Ryule 10 of 1970, (Annexure-6) wherein
age relaxation of 15 years for the post of
school lecturer, which has not been granted
and limiting the relaxation to the post of
Headmaster be declared violative of Article
14,16 of the Constitution of India and
further be quashed and set aside.
2. Further direction be issued to the
respondents for granting the age relaxation
to the petitioner of ten years in age under
rule 38 of Rajasthan Education Service
Rules, 1970 treating his case under the
category of exceptional in terms of
advertisement no.5/secondary education
2015-16 issued on 16.10.2015.
3. Any other order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court deemed fit and proper be
passed in favour of the humble petitioner.
4. Cost of the writ petition be quantified
(4 of 9 )
[CW-15167/2016]
to the petitioner."
DB Civil Writ Petition No.18724/2015
"1. by issuing a writ, order or direction or
in nature thereof rule 10 of the Rajasthan
Education Service Rules,1970 may kindly be
declared ultra vires.
2. by issuing a writ, order or direction or
in nature thereof the age criteria in the
advertisement aforesaid may kindly be
computed from 01.04.2016.
3. by issuing a writ, order or direction or
in nature thereof the petitioner may kindly
be allowed to participate in the selection and
if he found suitable, then he may be
appointed with all consequential benefits.
4. Any other appropriate order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court deems
just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of this case may kindly also
be passed in favour of the petitioner.
5. Cost of the litigation may also be
awarded to the petitioner."
DB Civil Writ Petition No.14888/2016
"1. The impugned proviso (I) of Rule 10
wherein age relaxation of 15 years for the
post of School Lecturer has not been
granted to the petitioners are the
advertisement dt.16.10.2015 as far as
consideration of age limit is concerned may
kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary
being violative of Article 14 & 16 of the
Constitution of India and therefore same
may kindly be quashed and set aside in the
interest of justice.
2. The respondents by appropriate writ,
order or direction in the nature thereof may
kindly be directed to;
a. to grant 15 years Age relaxation to
the petitioners in the upper age limit being
members of Rajasthan Education
Subordinate Service.
b. to give appointment to the petitioners
on the post of School Lecturer (respective
subject) by treating them within age for the
advertisement dated 16.10.2015 as they
(5 of 9 )
[CW-15167/2016]
are in merit. The subject wise details of the
petitioners provided as under:-
Pet No. Petitioner Name Subject
1. Girdhari Lal Gaur Pol. Sc.
2. Mahavir Singh Kishnawat History
3. Dilip Singh Gadan History
Data Ram Hindi
c. Any other appropriate order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court deems
just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case may kindly also
be passed in favour of the petitioners."
DB Civil Writ Petition No.15934/2016
"1. The impugned provisions contained
under the Rajasthan Education Service
Rules of 1970 and prescription of the
condition of the age in the advertisement
dated 16.10.2015 may be declared ultra-
virus being violative of Article 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India and accordingly
and relaxation to the extent of 15 years in
the age limit may be ordered to be granted
to the petitioner, who is a member of
Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service or
serving with the affairs of State Govt. of
Zila Parishad etc; the petitioner may be
held entitled for appointment on the post of
Lecturer School Education Subject Hindi in
the interest of justice.
2 Any other order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court deem just and proper may
also be passed in favour of the petitioner.
3. Cost of the writ petition may also be
awarded in favour of the petitioner."
2. We have heard Mr. Ashok Gaur, Senior Counsel with Mr.
Ajay Choudhary, Dr. Saugath Roy, Mr. Vigyan Shah and Mr.
Iliyash Khan on behalf of Mr. Tanveer Ahamad.
(6 of 9 )
[CW-15167/2016]
3. The main contention of all the petitioners is regarding
age relaxation.
4. The contention which has been raised by petitioners is
with regard relaxation in age as provided under Rule 10 of the
Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1971 which is reproduced
as under:
"A candidate for direct recruitment to a
post enumerated in the [Schedules] must
have attained the age of 24 year and must
not have attained the age mentioned in
column 7 of the [Schedules] against each
post on the first day of July next following
the last date fixed for receipt of
application:
Provided-
[(I) that the upper age limit mentioned in
column 7 of the [Schedules] shall be
relaxed by 5 years in the case of women
candidates, candidates belonging to
Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and
the Government Servant of Rajasthan for
all categories of posts mentioned in the
[Schedules]. In case of members of
Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service
the relaxation shall be 15 years for the
posts mentioned in item 1 of Groups F of
the Schedule.]
(ii) that the upper age limit mentioned in
column 7 of the [Schedules] shall not be
apply in case of an ex-prisoner who had
served under the Govt. on a substantive
basis on any post before his conviction and
was eligible for appointment under the
rules.
(iii) that the upper age limit mentioned in
column 7 of the [Schedules] shall be
relaxed by a period equal to the term of
imprisonment served in the case of an ex-
prisoner who was not overage before his
conviction and was eligible for appointment
under the rules;
(iv) that the upper age limit mentioned in
column 7 of the [Schedules] shall be
relaxed by a period equal to the service
rendered in the National Cader Corps in the
(7 of 9 )
[CW-15167/2016]
case of Cadet Instructors if the resultant
age does not exceed the prescribed
maximum age limit by more than three
years such candidate shall be deemed to
be within the prescribed age limit;
(v) that the persons appointed
temporarily [to a post in the service] shall
be deemed to be within the age limit if
they were within the age limit when they
were initially appointed even though they
have crossed the age limit when they
appear finally before the Commission and
shall be allowed upto two chances had they
been eligible as such at the time of their
initial appointment;
[(vi) notwithstanding anything contained
contrary in these rules in the case of
persons serving in connection with the
affairs of the State in substantive capacity,
the upper age-limit shall be 40 years for
direct filled in through the Commission.
This relaxation shall not apply to urgent
temporary appointment]
[(vii) that the Released Emergency
Commission Officers and Short Service
Commissioned Officers after release from
the Army shall be deemed to be within the
age-limit when they appear before the
Commission had they been eligible as such
at the time of their joining the Commission
in the Army.]
[(viii) that there shall be no age limit
in the case of widow and divorce women.
Explanation:- That in the case of widow,
she will have to furnish a certificate of
death of her husband from the competent
Authority and in the case of divorcee she
will have to furnish the proof of divorce].
[(ix) that where the upper age limit the
post/posts is prescribed as 33 years or less
in the rules or schedule, as the case may
be, it shall be relaxed by 2 years in the
case of candidates belonging to the other
Backward classes.]
5. He contended that fixing of 01.07.2016 as the relevant
date is arbitrary and contrary to the objects which are sought
to be achieved. The posts are required to be filled on or before
(8 of 9 )
[CW-15167/2016]
31st March of the relevant year, when the new session begins.
According to him the cutoff dated ought to have been fixed as
1st April of the relevant year. Fixing of date as 1 st July, 2016 is
arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
6. Dr. Saugath Roy has contended that Rule 10 provides for
relaxation in age which has been given to Headmasters and in
other case five years relaxation for the same post which is
discriminatory. He therefore, argued that the relaxation of 15
years which has been sought to be given to others, should also
be given to the OBC candidates.
7. Mr. Vigyan Shah appearing for the other petitioners
contended that for school teachers relaxation in age has been
provided for five years and the relaxation of age for the college
teacher or Headmasters is for 15 years, and therefore, there is
discrimination.
8. We have heard counsel for the petitioners and counsel for
the respondents.
9. Counsel for the respondents has mainly relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in case of D.S. Nakara & Ors. vs. Union of India- (1983)1 SCC 305 to contend that the decision of the authority with regard to the post and cadre experience, the authority has decided the qualification and age relaxation in an academic field. When the age relaxation and qualifications is decided, it will not be appropriate for us to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The relaxation which is sought to be made and prayer made for (9 of 9 ) [CW-15167/2016] issuing mandamus for amending or modifying the rule of qualification under Article 311 of the Constitution of India is misconceived.
10. In our opinion it will not be appropriate to interfere with the policy decision of the State Government by way of the statutory rules, framed under Article 311 of the Constitutiion of India. The authority has fixed the cutoff dated & age relaxation, wherein in view of the judgment of D.S. Nakara & Ors. vs. Union of India (supra) cannot be examined by this Court. We do not feel that the impugned provisions are arbitrary. The same is fixed according to the policy of the State Government, and it is equally applicable and consistent for all the posts of the Education Department. The relaxation of age for the Principal or Headmaster or advance Professor in the college is justified as the State may require experienced persons and for that, if the relaxation of age of 15 years is granted it is justified. In our view the same is permissible and it is a policy matter.
11. The writ petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.
12. Stay application stands dismissed.
13. Copy of this judgment be placed in each file.
(DINESH MEHTA) J. . (K.S.JHAVERI)J. Asheesh Kr. Yadav/22-25