Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 848 (RAJ)

Inder Bhan Singh Gujar v. State of Rajasthan

2001-05-11

K.S.RATHORE, V.S.KOKJE

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge rejecting the writ petition of the appellant wherein his contention was that he could not be taken to be over age for competing for the post of Sub-Inspector. The date of birth of the appellant is 29.10.93. He applied for being considered for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector in response to an advertisement issued on 23.1.96. The eligibility qualification as per the Rules and as set out in the advertisement as to age was that the candidate should have completed the age of 20 years and should not have completed age of 23 years as on 1.1.1997. The appellant had completed the age of 23 years in October, 1996 and was, therefore, not eligible to compete for the post. Despite being ineligible, the appellant applied in response to the advertisement before 23.3.96 which was the last date for submission of the application forms. His application form was entertained obivously, because in Clause 8 of the advertisement, it was stated that all the candidates whose applications are received within time along with required examination fees and photographs shall be allowed tentative admission in the examination. Eligibility of only such candidates will be verified who will clear the written and physical fitness test. It was also specifically stated in Clause 8 that the applicants should themselves verify and determine whether they are eligible in accordance with the advertisement/rules for competing for the post. It was further stated in Clause 8 of the advertisement that if the candidates are found ineligible, their candidature will be rejected even if the result was declared or they are selected for the post. Obviously, such a provision was made because of large number of candidates applying in response to the advertisement and it was not possible to scrutinise the application forms in a reasonable time. The appellant appeared in the examination held in the month of June, 1996, result of the examination was declared in September, 1996 and the successful candidates were called for interview in the month of April, 1997. It appears that the appellant had cleared the examination and therefore, his eligibility was verified by the respondents. On 15.2.97, the R.P.S.C. wrote to the appellant that his candidature has been rejected because he was over age. 2. It appears that the appellant had cleared the examination and therefore, his eligibility was verified by the respondents. On 15.2.97, the R.P.S.C. wrote to the appellant that his candidature has been rejected because he was over age. 2. In the meanwhile, on 13.11.96, the State Government issued a notification amending the relevant Service Rules and provided that where upper age limit to post/posts is prescribed as 33 years or less in the Rules or Schedule, as the case may be, it shall be relaxed by 2 years in the case of candidates belonging to the O.B.C. The contention of the appellant is that he is a member of one of the Other Backward Classes and, therefore, was entitled to the relaxation of age limit by two years and was, therefore, eligible to take the examination. When this contention was not accepted by the respondents, the appellant filed the writ petition in this Court contending that he was eligible to complete for the post of Sub-Inspector he was entitled to benefit of the notification dated 13.11.96. In the writ petition, the appellant contended that as the age had to be determined as on 1.1.97, the notification dated 13.11.96 would apply to his case because the Rules were amended prior to 1.1.97. He also contended, alternatively, that fixing the cut-off date for determination of age as 1.1.97 was arbitrary and had no nexus with the object of selection. According to the appellant, the eligibility as to age also should be tested by either date of the advertisement or the last date for submission of the application forms. 3. The learned Single Judge did not accept the contentions and dismissed the writ petition. Against the dismissal of the writ petition, this appeal has been filed. 4. In the appeal also, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant was eligible and was not over age because the notification dated 13.11.96 applied to his case. It was contended that since the notification was issued before cut off date for determining age of the candidates i.e. 1.1.97, it should be made applicable to the appellant's case. It was also contended that the Rules providing for 1st January of the next year as the cut off date for determination of age was arbitrary and had no nexus with the purposes of selection. It was also contended that the Rules providing for 1st January of the next year as the cut off date for determination of age was arbitrary and had no nexus with the purposes of selection. According to the learned counsel, the cut-off date could be the date on which the advertisement was published or the last date for receipt of application forms. 5. Having heard learned counsel and having perused the record, we find no force in this appeal. Apart from the reasons given by the learned Single Judge in his order, we find that the writ petition could be thrown out on the sole ground of the appellant not coming to the Court with clean hands. The appellant's conduct in applying for the post fully knowing that he was not eligible because of his having become over age, by itself was sufficient to deny any equitable or discretionary relief to him. When the appellant applied for the post, the notification relaxing the age for OBC candidates was not in existence. It came 7-8 months after the last date for submission of application forms and five months after the examination was held. Even the result of the examination was declared two months prior to the date of notification relaxing the age limit for OBC candidates. Granting relief to the appellant would be nothing else but rewarding him for his audacity in applying for a post fully knowing that he had become over age for the post and was not eligible for making application. It will also set a bad examine because a candidate who abides by the rules in force for the time being and respecting the rules does not apply when he knows that he is not eligible for the post and has become over age, would feel cheated and think that if he had also applied for the post, he could have taken advantage of notification subsequently issued relaxing the age limit. The responsible, self-disciplined and law abiding citizens would be put in a disadvantageous position and those who do not case for the rules and applied for a post knowing fully well that they are ineligible, would be in an advantageous position. Such a thing cannot be allowed to happen. 6. There is no force in the contention that fixation of 1.1.97 as the cut-off date was arbitrary was illegal. Such a thing cannot be allowed to happen. 6. There is no force in the contention that fixation of 1.1.97 as the cut-off date was arbitrary was illegal. The process of selection these days takes about eighteen months because of large number of candidates offering themselves for the post. Almost a year is lost in the process of selection. In such a situation, Ist January of the following year of the year in which advertisement was issued, was the reasonable cut-off date. Even otherwise, it is for the State Government to make rules in this regard and unless an arbitrary cut off date is fixed, this Court cannot interfere. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any force in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******