Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ravi Prakash Purohit vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 May, 2024
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2327/2024
Ravi Prakash Purohit S/o Gopal Purohit, Aged About 30 Years,
(DOB 19-06-1984), Resident Of Near Damaji Ki Haweli, Bhatto
Ka Mohalla, Begun, District Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Animal Husbandry, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board Jaipur, Through Its
Secretary.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hanuman Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh Bhati
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
Reportable 03/05/2024
1. The petitioner has challenged the cut off date (01.01.2025),
which the respondent - Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') has fixed for the age limit
of a candidate.
2. Inviting Court's attention towards the backdrop facts, Mr.
Hanuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the recruitment Notification No. 2607 was issued on 06.10.2023,
according to which, the candidates desirous of vying for the post
of Animal Attendant were supposed to submit their online
application form from 13.10.2023. He underscored that in said
recruitment notification, the cut off date was fixed as 01.01.2024
for the purpose of determining the age of the candidates.
(Downloaded on 06/05/2024 at 08:38:25 PM)
(2 of 10) [CW-2327/2024]
3. Learned counsel submitted that perhaps on account of
assembly elections, the recruitment process was kept in abeyance
and thereafter, by way of subsequent Notification No. 2710 dated
12.01.2024, a corrigendum in the form of amended advertisement
was issued, in which the relevant date for the purpose of
determining the age limit came to be altered to 01.01.2025 and
the window for submitting the forms was opened between
19.01.2024 and 17.02.2024.
4. Informing that the petitioner's date of birth is 19.06.1984,
learned counsel submitted that as per the Notification initially
issued (on 06.10.2023), the petitioner was well within the upper
age ceiling and thus eligible/entitled to apply but as a
consequence of the amended advertisement which was notified on
12.01.2024, the petitioner became ineligible, as the cut off date
has been changed to 01.01.2025.
5. While maintaining that the subsequent Notification dated
12.01.2024 was only an amendment in the earlier notification,
learned counsel argued that for whatever reasons, if the Board
was required to extend the date of submitting application form,
the cut off date could not have been altered and in any case the
same could not have been altered in a way that the eligible
candidates become ineligible.
6. Learned counsel further argued that the cut off date, which
has been altered by the Board, is not in conformity with Clause
(xv) of Rule 10 of The Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Subordinate
Service Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of
1977'), according to which, a person who was within the age limit
(Downloaded on 06/05/2024 at 08:38:25 PM)
(3 of 10) [CW-2327/2024]
as on 31.12.2020 was held to be within the age limit upto
31.12.2024.
7. Mr. Bhati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent - Board firstly raised an objection that the petitioner
has rushed to this Court without first submitting his application
form. It was argued that the last date of submitting application
form was 17.02.2024, whereas, the petitioner has preferred the
present writ petition on 14.02.2024, presuming that his
application form will not be accepted and his candidature would be
rejected. In other words, learned counsel argued that the
petitioner ought to have submitted his application form and waited
for the decision of the Board about his eligibility.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent - Board then joined the
issue on merit and by inviting Court's attention towards Rule 10 of
the Rules of 1977 argued that as per the provision relating to the
age limit, a candidate who has attained the age of 40 years on the
first day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of
application, shall be ineligible. He argued that since the last date
of submitting application form has been shifted to 17.02.2024,
naturally, the provision relating to upper age limit had to be
modified or suitably changed. He emphasised that whatever the
Board has done, has done in order to follow the mandate of the
Rules of 1977. He, thus, submitted that since the date altered by
the Board (01.01.2025) is in accordance with Rule 10 of the Rules
of 1977, no fault can be found in the action of the Board.
9. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble The
Supreme Court rendered in the case of Hirandra Kumar vs.
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad & Anr. reported in
(Downloaded on 06/05/2024 at 08:38:25 PM)
(4 of 10) [CW-2327/2024]
(2020) 17 SCC 401 and submitted that the petition in hand does
not warrant any interference.
10. In rejoinder, Mr. Hanuman Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the Notification dated 23.09.2008 issued by
the Department of Personnel and contended that as per this
notification, if the recruitment is not held for three years,
candidates are required to be treated as eligible in respect of
his/her age in the next following recruitment, if he/she has not
become overage by more than 3 years.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the stay application
and given my thoughtful consideration.
12. So far as the first objection raised by the Board that the
petitioner ought to have first submitted his application form and
then, if his candidature was rejected, should have approached this
Court is concerned, does not much appeal to this Court. If the
provisions of amended Notification dated 12.01.2024 are taken
into account, apparently, the petitioner has become overage, as
the cut off date has been fixed as 01.01.2025.
13. Hence, even if the contention of the petitioner is not
accepted that he was unable to submit his online application form,
because of the prefixed parameters of the program for the online
application form, then also, according to this Court, if upon a
simple reading of the advertisement, a candidate feels that he
would be treated overage on account of the criteria given in
advertisement/amended advertisement, he can well invoke writ
jurisdiction of the High Court, with a plea that the criteria so fixed
by the Board or the recruitment agency is arbitrary or not in
conformity with the law.
(Downloaded on 06/05/2024 at 08:38:25 PM)
(5 of 10) [CW-2327/2024]
14. Without waiting for rejection, if for abundant caution the
petitioner has preferred the writ petition, he cannot be accused of
jumping the gun. His petition cannot be thrown as premature,
particularly when the respondent - Board has filed a reply with a
specific plea that the petitioner has become overage.
15. The last date of submitting application form was 17.02.2024
and the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition on
14.02.2024; his rights, if any, flowing from the statute cannot be
foreclosed, simply because he has chosen to prefer the present
writ petition without filling or choosing to fill the application form.
Furthermore, instant writ petition, for the very question involved,
merits consideration and detailed deliberations.
16. It is noteworthy that the respondent Board has filed a reply
to the writ petition, in which it has not only justified the cut off
date (01.01.2025) but has also come up with a stance that the
petitioner is ineligible.
17. Such being the position, regardless of the first contention of
Mr. Bhati, this Court has to examine the petitioner's eligibility and
resolve the issue, which has cropped up for the Court's
consideration.
18. Moving on to the merit of the case, uncontroverted facts are
that, the recruitment Notification was firstly issued on 06.10.2023,
in which portal for submitting online application was supposed to
be opened from 13.10.2023 to 11.11.2023; the process of
recruitment was kept in hibernation for some time, which was
later revived on 12.01.2024 when the amended notification came
to be issued. The bone of contention is, para No.3 of the
subsequent notification dated 12.01.2024, which reads thus:-
(Downloaded on 06/05/2024 at 08:38:25 PM)
(6 of 10) [CW-2327/2024]
"3- mDr foKkiu ds fcUnq la[;k 09 vk;q esa vkosndksa dh vk;q dh
x.kuk fnukad 01-01-2024 ls fd;s tkus dk izko/kku fd;k x;k Fkk]
fu;eksa esa mYysf[kr vuqlkj vkosnu djus dh vafre frfFk ds
i"pkr~ vkus okyh vkxkeh tuojh dh izFke fnukad ls vk;q dh
x.kuk dh tkrh gSA vr% vc vkosndksa dh vk;q dh x.kuk fnukad
01-01-2025 ls dh tkosxhA"
19. The Board may be technically correct in realigning the cut off
date in tandem with the spirit of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1977, but
in the circumstances like the one in hands, adhering to rather
sticking to one part of the Rules dehors other provision and law
may bring iniquitous if not disastrous results.
20. Let us take a case in which the last date initially fixed was
say 25th of December of a particular year and for whatever reason,
if the last date gets extended, to any date say 5 th of January of the
subsequent year, then, this Court would ask a question to the
respondents "would they extend the cut off date by a year and
render the candidates, who were otherwise eligible, to be
ineligible?".
21. The answer would naturally be in negative - that can never
be an idea/intention of any Rules. If the literal interpretation given
to the Rules leads to some ambiguity; injustice; inconvenience;
hardship or inequity, then in all such events, avoiding the literal
meaning, a purposive interpretation is required to be given in such
a fashion that the purpose of legislation is fulfilled. Rules have to
be interpreted in a way that vanquishes or suppresses the
mischief and furthers the cause or advances the remedy. A
harmonious construction has to be given to the rules. And
accordingly, a candidate, who is otherwise eligible on the date of
issuance of an advertisement cannot be scooped out of the zone
(Downloaded on 06/05/2024 at 08:38:25 PM)
(7 of 10) [CW-2327/2024]
of consideration by subsequent notification, simply because of
fortuitous circumstance of postponement of the process.
22. As a matter of correct approach, the Board should have
provided that all the candidates who are/were eligible as per the
initial advertisement (dated 06.10.2023) shall be treated eligible,
while providing the cut off date to be 01.01.2025. That would
have perhaps served the purpose and avoided the hardship and
inconvenience meted out to the candidates.
23. It is to be noted that while making reference of the
Notification dated 23.09.2008 issued by the State Government
and Para No.8 of the Advertisement dated 06.10.2023, the
petitioner has taken a specific plea that he has not become
overage and the said Para has been responded by the respondent
- Board with a specific stand that since the cut off date has been
changed to 01.01.2025, the petitioner is ineligible on the ground
of age.
24. The stand of the respondent - Board is clearly contrary to
what has been provided in Para 8 of the advertisement dated
06.10.2023 and the Notification dated 23.09.2008 issued by the
State Government, which notification has been inserted in the
form of XVth proviso to Rule 10 of the Rules of 1977.
25. Clause (xv) or the xvth proviso the Rule 10 of the Rules of
1977 cannot be given a go by and opening part of Rule 10 cannot
be read divorced of this proviso. This Court would like to quote the
same:-
"Provided -
........
........
(xv) the person who was within the age limit on 31.12.2020 shall be deemed to be within the age limit upto 31.12.2024."
(Downloaded on 06/05/2024 at 08:38:25 PM)
(8 of 10) [CW-2327/2024]
26. In relation to aforesaid clause (xv), contention of Mr. Bhati, learned counsel for the respondent - Board was that such insertion was made vide notification dated 23.09.2022, perhaps keeping the Pandemic (COVID-19) in mind.
27. Neither the language of above provision, nor any material placed on record shows that such provision was inserted in order to ward off the adversities or difficulties likely to be faced by the candidates on account of spread of Pandemic. Even if that be so, if the State Government in its wisdom has provided in express terms that the person, who was within the age limit on 31.12.2020 shall be deemed to be within the age limit upto 31.12.2024, it has to be given its natural meaning and effect. The recruiting agency cannot be permitted to scan or read the mind of the legislature to non suit the candidates, who are otherwise eligible.
28. The judgment which Mr. Bhati has so zealously relied, is of little help to him because, that holds that the recruiting agency can fix a cut off date. There is no quarrel about the Board's power of fixing the cut off date - the moot question is - in a case like the one, this Court is in seisin, if the date of submitting application form gets extended for whatever reason, whether the cut off date for determining age limit can be altered or postponed and if yes, then can it be detrimental to the candidates who were eligible per- force the terms of the original advertisement?
29. It is pertinent that the earlier notification dated 06.10.2023 was neither recalled nor a fresh advertisement was issued.
30. The respondent's stand that the petitioner has become overage, if his age is calculated as on 01.01.2025 is, therefore, (Downloaded on 06/05/2024 at 08:38:25 PM) (9 of 10) [CW-2327/2024] clearly in the teeth of (xv) proviso to Rule 10 and the same cannot be countenanced.
31. There is yet another aspect of the matter. If seen carefully, it is clear that the subsequent notification dated 12.01.2024 is only an amendment notification (la'k¨fËkr foKfIr) whereby a few changes have been introduced, but the flesh, blood and soul of the earlier notification has remained intact. It will be apt to reproduce the relevant part of the advertisement dated 06.10.2023, which runs as under:-
"8- vk;q%& vkosnd 1] tuojh 2024 dks 18 o'kZ dh vk;q izkIr dj pqdk gks rFkk 40 o'kZ dk ugha gqvk gksA jkT; ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 23-09-2022 }kjk fofHkUu lsok fu;eksa esa la"kks/ku dj vk;q lhek esa NwV nh gSA blh vuqlkj vf/kdre vk;q lhek esa NwV fuEukuqlkj vkSj ns; gksxh %& The person who was within the age limit on 31.12.2020 shall be deemed to be within the age limit upto 31.12.2024."
32. The subsequent notification dated 12.01.2024, therefore, has the effect of changing the cut off date of 1 st January, 2024 to 1st January, 2025 and remaining part of the basic advertisement notification remains unaltered. Hence, as per Para No. 8 of the advertisement dated 06.10.2023, the petitioner cannot be said to be ineligible.
33. As a consequence of discussion foregoing, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioner has not become overage and is, therefore, eligible to apply pursuant to the recruitment notification under consideration.
34. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed.
35. The respondent - Board is directed to accept petitioner's offline application form and allow him to take part in the further process, including written examination.
(Downloaded on 06/05/2024 at 08:38:25 PM)
(10 of 10) [CW-2327/2024]
36. The petitioner shall approach the Secretary of the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board on or before 20.05.2024 and furnish offline application form to be facilitated by the Board on payment of requisite fee; subject of course to fulfilling other eligibility criteria, the petitioner's application form shall be accepted and acted upon.
37. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 9-Mak/-
(Downloaded on 06/05/2024 at 08:38:25 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)