JUDGMENT 1. -The petitioner, who is physically handicapped (orthopaedically handicapped) was born-on 27.12.47. He was substantively holding the post of a Teacher in the education department of the Government of Rajasthan when Rajasthan Public Service Commission (R.P.S.C.) issued an advertisement No. 6/89-90 for 334 posts of school lecturers (Senior Teachers Hindi) along with number of posts of school lecturers in other subjects. The petitioner submitted an application in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement. Although physically handicapped persons are not required to appear at the written examination and are directly called for interview, the petitioner was not called for interview on the ground that he is overage. An intimation dated 9.7.90 was sent to the petitioner by the R.P.S.C. rejecting his candidature on the ground that he has crossed the upper age limit. The petitioner submitted a representation to the R.P.S.C. but his representation was rejected by the Commission vide its letter dated 20.9.90. The petitioner then represented to the Government and stated that he may be given benefit of relaxation in the upper age limit as provided for in the case of physically handicapped persons. 2. In pursuance of the direction given by the court the petitioner was interviewed by the R.P.S.C. for the post of school lecturer (Hindi). Result of the interview was produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate in the court in a sealed cover. On opening the sealed cover it was revealed that the petitioner had secured 54 marks in the interview and thus he is a successful candidate, who is entitled to be appointed as school lecturer (Hindi). 3. The petitioner's case is that rejection of his candidature on the ground of his having crossed the upper age limit on 1.1.90 is wholly erroneous because vacancies for which the selections have been made relate to earlier years and for a number of years regular selection had not been made for the posts of school lecturers. It has also been argued by the petitioner that he has a right to get the benefit of higher upper age limit prescribed for physically handicapped persons. The R.P.S.C. has not at all considered his candidature in the category of physically handicapped persons. The petitioner has claimed that he is also entitled to the benefit of the upper age limit prescribed for substantive Government servants. 4. The R.P.S.C. has not at all considered his candidature in the category of physically handicapped persons. The petitioner has claimed that he is also entitled to the benefit of the upper age limit prescribed for substantive Government servants. 4. The R.P.S.C. has contested the writ petition by stating that even after granting the benefit of relaxation of age to the petitioner on the ground of his being a physically handicapped person, he was having the age of 42 years and 9 days on 1.1.90 and, therefore, he is not entitled to be considered as eligible. The petitioner has no right to claim two concessions i.e., being a Govt. servant and being a physically handicapped person. The R.P.S.C. has asserted that its decision of not calling the petitioner for selection is legally justified. 5. In support of the writ petition, Shri S.C. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the first instance argued that as per the provisions contained in Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (for short 1971 Rules),the petitioner has a right to get the benefit of upper age limit of 40 years prescribed for substantive Government servants and also an additional benefit of 10 years relaxation on the ground of his being physically handicapped person. Shri Gupta made a reference to the various clauses of the advertisement and submitted that the relaxation clauses must not be read as alternative and if a person is entitled to more than one age relaxation, he should be extended the benefit of such relaxations. Shri Ashok Parihar, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand argued that the relaxation provided in Rule 10 of 1971 rules can be claimed in either of the clauses and if cumulative benefit of relaxation clauses was to be given,extremely anomalous situation would arise. Shri Parihar placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Bhanwarlal Tripathi v. R.P.S.C., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 136/91 decided on January 9, 1991 and Jagannath Verma v. State of Rajasthan and another, S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 592/91 decided on 24.9.91. 6. In my opinion the argument of Shri Gupta that cumulative benefit should be given to a candidate in the matter of relaxation of upper age limit cannot be accepted. 6. In my opinion the argument of Shri Gupta that cumulative benefit should be given to a candidate in the matter of relaxation of upper age limit cannot be accepted. In the two cases, of which reference has been made by Shri Parihar, provisions contained in rule 10 of 1971 Rules and the notification dated 23.8.89, by which applications were invited for Senior Teachers (Hindi) have been considered by two different Benches of this Court. It has been held that the relaxation in the upper age limit can be claimed only under one of the clauses. Grant of cumulative benefit of various relaxation clauses will lead to absurd results in as much as a candidate who may have crossed the age of 58 years may also claim eligibility in a particular given case. I find no reason for taking a different view. Therefore, the first submission of Shri Gupta is without merit and is rejected. 7. The second contention advanced by Shri Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that the vacancies for which selection has been held by the R.P.S.C. in pursuance of advertisement dated 23.8.89 are of the years 1985-86, 1986-87, 1987-88 and 1988-89. For these vacancies no selection had been made in these years. If a regular selection had been made in the year 1985 or 1986 or in 1987, the petitioner would have been within age limit. Shri Gupta argued that being a physically handicapped person the petitioner entitled to the relaxation in upper age limit upto ten years. His date of birth is 27.12.47. He would, therefore, complete the age of 41 years as on 27.12.88. Shri Gupta argued that merely because the R.P.S.C. and the Government in the Education Department did not determine the vacancies for direct recruitment and did not make regular selection, the right of the petitioner to be considered for selection cannot be defeated only on the ground that now the petitioner has crossed the upper age limit. Shri Gupta placed reliance on the decisions of this court in Prakash Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 (2) RLR 1 , and Dr. Om Narayan Purohit v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1991 (S) WLR 345. Shri Gupta placed reliance on the decisions of this court in Prakash Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 (2) RLR 1 , and Dr. Om Narayan Purohit v. State of Rajasthan and others, 1991 (S) WLR 345. Shri Ashok Parihar countered this submission of Shri Gupta by urging that the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of relaxation in upper age limit beyond what has already been prescribed in the rules and he cannot be treated as eligible as on 1.1.90 because as on that date he had become average by more than two years. 8. I have given my serious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. A reading of the main provision of Rule 10 together with the notification dated 23.8.89 clearly show that a physically handicapped person is entitled to be treated as within age limit upto 41 years. Therefore, the petitioner could be treated as eligible upto 27.12.88. If that was the simple matrix of calculation, the petitioner may not have been entitled to any benefit on account of relaxation of upper age limit by 10 years meant for physically handicapped persons. However, the facts which have been disclosed by the learned counsel for the parties and particularly the fact stated by the learned Additional Government Advocate on a query made by the court regarding the determination of vacancies, it is clear that for a number of years regular selections have not been made by the R.P.S.C. for the posts of lecturers. In fact the Government has not sent requisition to the R.P.S.C. for filling up the post of lecturers since after 1984. If a selection had been made in the year 1985 or 1986 or in 1987, the petitioner would have certainly been within the upper age limit. Can it be said that merely because the Government had not determined the vacancies or merely because the R.P.S.C. had not advertised the vacancies for regular selection, the right of the petitioner, to be considered for selection, will be frustrated for all times to come during his service career, so far as direct recruitment is concerned? A similar question has been examined at length by a division Bench of this court in Prakash Chand v. State of Rajasthan (supra). A similar question has been examined at length by a division Bench of this court in Prakash Chand v. State of Rajasthan (supra). In that case provisions contained in the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1974 and Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 were considered by this court. After making detailed analysis of the rules relating to determination of vacancies it has been held by this court that there is a statutory obligation on the competent authority to determine the vacancies for direct recruitment as well as by promotion. It has also been held that the competent authority cannot avoid this responsibility by sheer inaction or omission and failure on the part of the competent authority cannot be used as a basis for denying eligibility to those who are eligible in a particular year but becomes ineligible on account of absence of determination of vacancies on yearly basis and initiation of the process of recruitment in the relevant year. Reference was also made to the provisions of Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1962 and the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules 1955. In the context of these rules it has been observed that as per 1962 and 1955 rules the benefit of relaxation in upper age limit is given if examination is not held in a particular year. Those rules do not envisage even existence of vacancies in a particular year. The court had observed that a provision like one contained in rule 11-B of 1962 Rules or Rule 10 of the 1955 Rules would have eliminated wholly unnecessary litigation. The ratio of the decision in Prakash Chand's case has been applied in Dr. Om Narayan Purohit's case (supra). That was also a case relating to the advertisement No. 6/89-90. The date of birth of the petitioner in that case was 1.6.57. He too was treated ineligible because he had crossed the upper age limit on 1.1.90. In para 7 of that decision it has been recorded by the court that vacancies in the cadre of School Teachers/School Lecturers have not been advertised by the Commission after 1984 and before issuance of advertisement No. 6/89-90. He too was treated ineligible because he had crossed the upper age limit on 1.1.90. In para 7 of that decision it has been recorded by the court that vacancies in the cadre of School Teachers/School Lecturers have not been advertised by the Commission after 1984 and before issuance of advertisement No. 6/89-90. The court accepted the submission of the counsel for the petitioner that since the respondents have failed to make the yearwise determination of vacancies and have also failed to fill up the vacancies, candidates cannot be treated as ineligible merely because they have crossed the upper age limit for the purpose of advertisement No. 6/89-90. 9. In my opinion the decision in Om Narayan Purohit's case directly applies to the facts of this case. Once it has been found by this court as a matter of fact that vacancies have not been advertised after 1984 and prior to the issue of advertisement No. 6/89-90, the petitioner, who was well within age limit in the year 1985 to 1988, cannot be treated as ineligible on the ground that on 1.1.90 he has crossed the upper age limit. 10. In view of the above conclusion this writ petition succeeds and it is hereby allowed. The rejection of the candidature of the petitioner by the R.P.S.C. on the ground of his having crossed the age limit is declared as illegal and is quashed. The R.P.S.C. is directed to forward the name of the petitioner to the competent authority for his appointment as School Lecturer (Hindi). The Rajasthan Public Service Commission must do so within one month of the submission of the certified copy of this order by the petitioner and within two months thereafter the State Government/ the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, should issue necessary order for appointment of the petitioner as per his merit. Parties are left to bear their own costs.Writ Petition Allowed. *******