Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Minton Soni vs State (Home Department) Ors on 17 November, 2016
SBCWP No.15632/2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
JAIPUR
ORDER
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15632/2016
Minton Soni vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Date of order: 17th November, 2016.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Mr. Anoop Dhand, for the petitioner.
Mr. Vinay Pandey Asst. Govt. Counsel on behalf of Mr. Sanjay Sharma,
Government Counsel, for the respondents.
Mr. M.F. Baig, for the respondent Commission.
The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that the respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter called 'RPSC') be directed to entertain application of the petitioner to the post of Sub Inspector in pursuance of the advertisement issued in the year 2016, even though the petitioner is not eligible to apply being overage.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the advertisement issued by the RPSC a following note has been appended as under:-
"However the upper age limit mentioned above may be relaxed by three years in exceptional cases by appointing authority, after previous approval of the Government."
The learned counsel for the petitioner submit that the petitioner is sanguine that his case shall be considered by the respondents as exceptional case and relaxation of three years shall be granted to him. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that before the petitioner's prayer could be considered by the State Government, he has been deprived to appear in the competition as his form has not been accepted by the RPSC online on the ground that the petitioner is overage.
Mr. Vinay Pandey, Asst. Government Counsel who has caused appearance for the respondent State has submitted that maximum relaxation which could be granted by the State Government in exceptional circumstances is three years and in case the petitioner apply, his case shall be considered on merit and if the petitioner is able to spell out favourable circumstances his case shall be duly considered.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this court is SBCWP No.15632/2016 2 of the view that subject to relaxation in age which may or may not be granted by the State Government, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right to apply for the post of Sub Inspector. Thus, the respondent RPSC is directed to accept the form of the petitioner offline within fifteen days from today.
The petitioner shall within fifteen days from today also file a representation to the State Government to consider his case for grant of relaxation qua the age. The State Government shall within three months decide whether exceptional circumstances are in favour of the petitioner to grant such relaxation or not. Subject to the decision of the representation in favour of the petitioner, he shall be permitted to undertake examination in pursuance of the advertisement issued.
It is clarified that this Court has only ordered that the application of the petitioner shall be accepted offline without commenting upon the rights of the State Government to grant or refuse relaxation qua the age of a candidate.
In view of directions issued above, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
A copy of this order under the seal and signature of the Court Master be handed over to Mr. Vinay Pandey, Asst. Government Counsel for onward transmission and necessary compliance.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA), J.
Mak/-
56