Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Thus, it has been decided in cases aforesaid that passing direction for relaxation in age by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be incorrect even in a case where due to inaction of the State, vacancies could not be filled.

11. The learned counsel for the appellants, however, has tried to impress upon the Court by placing reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in The State of Andhra Pradesh v. T.Ramakrishna Rao and Others (Supra) but we, after going through the factual aspect involved therein, have found that the fact involved in the aforesaid case was quite different to that of the fact involved in this case. In the said case, advertisement was issued for filling up 60 vacancies on the basis of unamended Rule i.e. unamended Rule 5, but subsequently Rule 5 was amended and in the meanwhile the vacancies increased to 200 and, therefore, the Commission decided to hold a fresh examination under the amended Rule 5 but the High Court turned down this proposal and directed the Commission to