Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dalip Singh Sahu & Ors. vs . State Of Rajasthan & Ors. on 2 September, 2015
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
ORDER
1.S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9201/2015 Dalip Singh Sahu & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
2.S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9202/2015 Vijay Singh Dhariwal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
3.S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9590/2015 Shivji Ram Choudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
4.S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9571/2015 Ratana Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
5.S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9593/2015 Narayan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
6.S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9594/2015 Prakash Chandra Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
7.S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9599/2015 Balvir Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
8.S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9603/2015 Santosh Batra Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
9.S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9612/2015 Jagdish Chandra Mundra & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
10.S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9619/2015 Irshad Ali Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
11.S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9620/2015 Laxman Singh Rajput & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
12.S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9629/2015 Shaitan Singh Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
13.S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9632/2015 Babulal Togasiya Vs. State of Rajasthan Date of order : 2.9.2015 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA Dr. Nupur Bhati, Mr. Rohitash Singh, Mr. Om Singh Chauhan, Mr. Shree Kant Verma, Mr. N.L.Joshi, Mr. N.L.Joshi, Mr. Bhanwar Singh, Mr. Tribhuvan Singh, Mr. Ravindra Acharya, Mr. Awar Dan Ujjwal and Mr. Shardul Bishnoi, for the petitioners.
Mr. S.S.Ladrecha, AAG with Mr. Vikas Choudhary, for the respondents.
<><><> The respondent State Government has initiated a selection process for recruitment of eligible candidates on the 2 post of Vidhyalay Sahayaks under the Rajasthan Vidhyalay Sahayak Subordinate Services Rules, 2015. The candidates who were earlier working on contractual basis in various State run education schemes are entitled to apply in the selection process. The criterion of selection is merit and bonus marks on the basis of experience gained in earlier stints of service. As per clause 9.1.10 of the advertisement, such candidates who were within the prescribed age limit (between 18 to 35 years) while offering their services in Government run Educational Schemes viz. Lok Jumbish Scheme/Sarvshikha Abhiyan/ District Primary Education Programme/Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala/Shiksha Karmi Board and Madarsa Board are entitled to apply in this selection process. The persons belonging to S.C./S.T., OBC, and Specially Abled categories are entitled to age relaxation of varying terms. Since, no age limits were prescribed in the earlier State run educational schemes, the petitioners claim to have been selected therein even though they were above 35 years of age. As a consequence, they are beyond the upper age limit prescribed in the current recruitment process.
Counsel for the petitioners contend that Rule 41 of the Rules of 2015 gives power to the administrative department of the Government of Rajasthan to relax the age or the requirement of experience in the suitable cases looking to the nature of hardship. They submit that an exactly identical rule 3 was interpreted by this Court in an earlier recruitment for the post of Shikha Sahayak. They contend that while deciding the earlier round of litigation, this Court permitted the candidates concerned to submit hard copies of their application forms. Simultaneously, the candidates were required to submit their detailed representations to the competent authority for giving them age relaxation. The competent authority in turn was directed to decide such representation as per law and as per the judgment rendered by the Jaipur Bench of this Court in the case of Shailesh Verma Vs. State of Rajasthan being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1839/2009 decided on 5.9.2012. Learned counsel submit that these writ petitions may also be decided with the same directions.
Learned A.A.G. is not in a position to dispute the fact that the power of age relaxation is available under Rule 41. However, he contends that such powers can be exercised by the competent authority in appropriate cases looking to the nature of the hardship faced by a particular candidate.
Having regard to the facts & circumstances of the case, the writ petitions are disposed of requiring the petitioners to submit representation to the appropriate authority for giving them age relaxation by exercising power under Rule 41 of the Rules of 2015. Upon receiving such representation, the appropriate authority shall objectively consider and decide the same by a reasoned order within a period of three weeks from the date of submission. In the meantime, the respondents 4 shall accept the hard copy of the petitioners applications for recruitment in the ongoing recruitment process for selection as Vidhyalay Sahayaks. However, the petitioners' right of selection shall remain subject to the final order which may be passed on his/her representation seeking age relaxation.
No order as to costs.
A copy of the order be placed in each file.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
/Sushil/