Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4.The candidates, who have already attained maximum age provided for appointment, may be treated as overage and should not be given appointment on the post of PTI Gr II/ PTI Gr III.
5.The candidates belonging to Jat community of districts Dholpur and Bharatpur should not be given benefit of reservation by treating them to be in the category of OBC candidates.
6.The total numbers of posts calculated for reservation to the Special Backward Class (SBC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) are at the district level, whereas, it should have been by taking total posts at the State level, accordingly, to provide them proper reservation.
If a candidate would have been entitled in respect of his/her age for direct recruitment in any year in which no such recruitment was held, he/she shall be deemed to be eligible in the next following recruitment, if he/she is not overage by more than 3 years.
Keeping in view the amendment Notification dt.23.09.2008, we find that after the present amendment Notification, the advertisement came to be notified by the authority and the cut-off date for submission of application form was 15.01.2012 and that being so u/R.10 of the Rules, 1971, age is the first day of January following the last date fixed for the receipt of application and that came to be looked into as on 01.01.2013. The candidates who have participated in the selection process, pursuant to the advertisement dt.14.12.2011 and those who are within the age as on 01.01.2013 were considered eligible & within age and after the selection process, pursuant to the advertisement dt.14.12.2011 was completed, the present selection process came to be initiated by the Commission vide advertisement dt.18.09.2013 holding selections for the post of PTI Gr.II & Gr.III and the eligibility in regard to the age has to be determined as on 01.01.2014 u/R.10 of the Rules, 1971. Thus, the candidate who had participated, pursuant to the advertisement dt.14.12.2011 are considered eligible upto 01.01.2013 as regard age is concerned and they had an opportunity to participate in the selection process in the previous advertisement dt.14.12.2011.
The amendment Notification dt.23.09.2008 in the scheme of Rules, 1971 envisage that an opportunity to the candidate to participate in the selection process of direct recruitment in any year, if recruitment has not been held, be provided by granting him relaxation by one year and he may be considered to be eligible in the next following recruitment year but with a rider that he will not become overage by more than three years.
In the instant case, the candidates who have participated in the previous advertisement dt.14.12.2011, such candidate were considered to be eligible as regard age is concerned upto 01.01.2013 and were permitted to participate in the selection process and in subsequent advertisement impugned herein dt.18.09.2013 those who were eligible as on 01.01.2014 were permitted to participate in the selection process. Thus, none of the candidate was deprived on account of age and all the candidates who were eligible as on 01.01.2012, 01.01.2013 & 01.01.2014 fair opportunity to participate in the selection process has been afforded to them and the object & purport of omnibus amendment Notification dt.23.09.2008 in fact has been fulfilled in the selection process which has been initiated by the Commission, pursuant to the advertisement dt.18.09.2013.
Thus, there is no year in which the candidates have been deprived from participating in the selection process on account of being overage, pursuant to the advertisement in question and the view expressed by the ld.Single Judge that since there was no advertisement in the year 2012, as such, they are entitled to relaxation of one year, in our considered view, is not sustainable in law and not in conformity with the amendment Notification dt.23.09.2008 and scheme of Rules, 1971.
Thus, in our view that the issue No.11 which has been decided by the ld.Single Judge in holding that the candidates are entitled to get relaxation of one year for the reason that no recruitment was held in 2012 is without substance and the finding recorded in regard to the issue No.11 in granting relaxation of one year to the candidates deserves to be set aside.