Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Brijesh Kumar Mursaniyan vs The State Of Rajasthan on 26 March, 2021
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR (1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3202/2021
1. Gopee Lal S/o Shri Beerbal Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Mandroop Nagar, Kanasar, Jodhpur (Raj.).
2. Rakesh Bishnoi S/o Shri Surjaram Bishnoi, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Madiya, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner (Raj.).
3. Chandra Shekhar S/o Shri Patram Bishnoi, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Alai, District Nagaur (Raj.).
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Police Headquarter, Jaipur.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.
----Respondents Connected With (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2640/2021
1. Richpal Singh S/o Dilip Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Keshav Nagar, Malar Road, Phalodi, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Rishabh Raj Singh Rathore S/o Pushpendra Singh Rathore, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Jakhaniya, Kalpi, Nagaur, Rajasthan.
3. Kuldeep Singh Sisodiya S/o Himmat Singh Sisodiya, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 86, Neem Wali Gali, Nai Haveli Ka Chowk, Tehsil Nathdwara, Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
4. Prahlad Singh Rathore S/o Narayan Singh Rathore, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 4/31, Civil Line, Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 26/03/2021 at 09:19:21 PM) (2 of 5) [CW-3202/2021]
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
4. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents (3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3004/2021
1. Brijesh Kumar Mursaniyan S/o Shri Rambabu Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of 163, Behind Shiva Talkies, Sahyog Nagar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
2. Sumit Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Raghuveer Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of 63 K Giriraj Nagar Morija Road Chomu, Ward No. 22, Chomuu Jaipur.
3. Vishvnath Pratap Singh Ranawat S/o Shri Shaitan Singh Ranawat, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Kamalpura Post Banera Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
4. Chakravarti Singh Bhutto S/o Shri Ranidan Singh, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of V.p.o. Chhayan Tehsil Pokaran Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
5. Sravan Singh S/o Shri Shaitan Singh, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Bidhaniyon Ki Dhani Shobhala Jetmal Chohtan, Barmer, Rajasthan.
6. Uttam Raj Purohit S/o Shri Sangram Ram, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Village Ropni, Tehsil Raniwada, Jalore 343049 Rajasthan.
7. Pushpendra Kumar Singh S/o Swai Singh, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Bhandoo Charnan, Tehsil Shergarh District Jodhpur (Raj.).
8. Amit Sukla S/o Shri Ramlakhan Shukla, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Tirupatinagar, Jagatpura, Jaipur.
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Home Secretary, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
(Downloaded on 26/03/2021 at 09:19:21 PM)(3 of 5) [CW-3202/2021]
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary.
4. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur Rajasthan.
----Respondents (4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3155/2021
1. Vipul Kumar Jagarwal S/o Shri Shankar Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Chandpole , Outside Rampole Ki Bari , Behind Hanuman Temple Prem Bhawan Jodhpur , Raj.
2. Ravindra Godara S/o Shri Ram Kumar Godara, Aged About 31 Years, R/o A-30 Amar Nagar , Near Kitni Phatak Under Pass, Khatipura , Jaipur , Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary , Secretariat , Raj. , Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, General Of Police , Police Headquarter, Rajasthan , Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary , Ajmer
4. The Secretary , Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat , Jaipur , Rajasthan.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kailash Choudhary for Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG Mr. Khet Singh JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 26/03/2021
1. These writ petitions involve challenge to age relaxation granted by the respondents.
(Downloaded on 26/03/2021 at 09:19:21 PM)(4 of 5) [CW-3202/2021]
2. According to the petitioners, the State has erred in granting only two years' relaxation whereas the relaxation ought to have been granted for four years, as the last recruitment took place in the year 2017.
3. Relying upon the fact that the Jaipur Bench of this Court has granted interim relief in some of the matters, this Court has also granted interim relief in some of these matters and the respondents were directed to accept petitioners' application forms.
4. Mr. Khet Singh, learned counsel for the respondent - RPSC, at the outset informs that the Jaipur Bench of this Court has decided the controversy vide its judgment dated 15.03.2021 in the bunch of cases led by Mukesh Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors : SB Civil Writ Petition No.2555/2021 and held that grant of age relaxation is exclusive domain of the employer and the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
5. The operative part of the aforesaid judgment dated 15.03.2021 reads thus :
"16. Accordingly, the power under Rule 11(a) Proviso (3) of the Rules of 1989 lays down as under:-
"(3) however the upper age-limit mentioned above may be relaxed by three years in exceptional cases by appointing authority, after previous approval of Government."
17. The said power is exclusively within the administrative domain of the appointing authority with prior approval of the State Government and judicial review relating to the exercise of such power is not available with this Court as the discretion while exercising such a power is exclusively administrative one.
(Downloaded on 26/03/2021 at 09:19:21 PM)(5 of 5) [CW-3202/2021]
18. It is only in cases where the judicial process is of such a nature which creates arbitrariness or discrimination between similarly situated persons that this Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the anvil of the fundamental rights available to a citizen, such discriminatory order or arbitrary order may be set aside. However, a mandamus to the State Authorities to exercise discretionary power in a particular manner and to a particular extent is not available with this Court. In the present case, the appointing authority and in consultation with approval of the State has only granted two years age relaxation while exercising the power under Rule 11(a) proviso (3). The same cannot be said in any manner to be arbitrary.
19. Therefore, Keeping in view the scope as available with this Court, I do not find any ground to allow these writ petitions.
20. However, it is always open for the petitioners to approach the State Authorities for grant of age relaxation and if such discretion exercised by the State, the same would apply to all the candidates including those who have not approached the Court.
21. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed.
22. A copy of this order be placed in each file.
23.All pending applications shall also stand disposed of."
6. Following the judgment aforesaid, these writ petitions are also dismissed.
7. Interim order (if any) passed stands vacated.
8. Stay applications as well as all interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 194-197-skm/-
(Downloaded on 26/03/2021 at 09:19:21 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)