Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1470 (RAJ)

Kumari Mukta Gaur v. State of Rajasthan

2002-08-26

D.N.JOSHI, RAJESH BALIA

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 1. The appellant, who is also the petitioner, is aggrieved of the fact that she has not been considered eligible for appointment to the post of Lecturer under the Rajasthan Technical Service Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1973) notwithstanding that she holds academic qualifications necessary for such consideration solely on account of amendment in the Rules of 1973 after the date on which vacancies for the year 1996-97 were to be determined. 2. The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioner was born on 1.10.78 and the amendment was made in the Rules of 1963 on 21.11.96. The minimum age required for entry in the service under the Rules was 18 years before its amendment. The candidate must have attained the minimum age on the first day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of applications. As on the date notification was issued, amendment prescribing the minimum age as 20 years had come into being. Last date for receiving application was 15.3.1997 and the date on which the candidate was required to have completed It least 21 years was 1.1.1998. As on that data the petitioner did not become 20 years of age, hence she was not considered eligible and excluded from consideration. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant- petitioner that since the petitioner was 18 years of age as on 1.4.96, the date on which vacancies for the year 1996-97 were to be determined, and she was eligible as per rules existing on the date when vacancies were to be determined for being considered on the post of Lecturer, by subsequent amendment in the Rules she cannot be deprived of such consideration. Alternatively, it is urged by learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner that the amendment itself, having no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by such amendment, is unreasonable and deserves to be struck down as violative of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 4. Both the contentions did not find favour with the order of the learned Single Judge and the petitioner was dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 5. It is a case of direct recruitment under the Rules. 4. Both the contentions did not find favour with the order of the learned Single Judge and the petitioner was dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 5. It is a case of direct recruitment under the Rules. Rule 4 of the Rules of 1973 envisages that the Government may leave unfilled or hold in abeyance any post, permanent or temporarily, from time to time without thereby entitling any person to any completion. Apparently, the determination of vacancy and recruitment are not simultaneous so as to acquire a vested right to be considered on the eligibility criteria as on 1st April of the calendar year when the vacancies for that calendar year is to be determined. So also inspite of determining the vacancies as on 1st of April, the posts may not be filled or may be held in abeyance without giving rise to any claim to compensation on that account. Therefore, mere determination of vacancies for any particular vacancy does not create any vested right in favour of those persons who might claim to be eligible on that date but may not be so eligible subsequently when vacancies are filled later on. 6. Moreover, Rule 9 of the Rules of 1973 which provides for determination of vacancies envisages that the Appointing Authority shall determine each year the number of vacancies anticipated during the following twelve months and the number of persons likely to be recruited by any of the methods. Such vacancies shall be determined again before the expiry of twelve months of the last determination of such vacancies. Rule 9 and Rule 4 of the Rules of 1973, if read together, leave no room of doubt that each year when the vacancies are determined there may be existing vacancies which remained unfilled and the vacancies which are likely to occur during the following twelve months and taken together determination takes place. It is on the total vacancies so determined, the process of selection and appointment under the rules takes place. 7. Rule 10 of the Rules of 1973 itself provides the eligibility criteria of age with reference to the date when the candidate must have attained at least minimum age and ought not to have crossed maximum age limit. It is on the total vacancies so determined, the process of selection and appointment under the rules takes place. 7. Rule 10 of the Rules of 1973 itself provides the eligibility criteria of age with reference to the date when the candidate must have attained at least minimum age and ought not to have crossed maximum age limit. The minimum age and the maximum age criteria for the purpose of finding out the eligibility of a candidate is directly related to the last date of receipt of the applications and not to the date of existence of vacancies. If that be the eligibility criteria, the law as obtain on the last date fixed for receipt of applications becomes relevant to find whether a person is eligible on the criteria laid down in the Rules or not 8. Apparently, on the admitted facts in the present case, when the advertisement itself was dated 20.1.97 and the amendment in the Rules has taken place much prior to the date of advertisement, the requirement of age, minimum or maximum, shall have to be considered in the light of amended provision and not in the light of unamended provision by finding the date of age with reference to the determination of particular vacancy. Therefore, we do not find any justification in submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the eligibility at the commencement of a financial year to which vacancy for direct recruitment relates must govern the recruitment to such vacancies during a Financial Year and any subsequent amendment ought to remain in suspended animus until the commencement of next financial year. There is no warrant for such a proposition to keep operation of law validly made and becomes operative immediately in abeyance until commencement of new Financial Year on April 1st following such amendment. 9. The petitioner was not eligible as such as on the date the applications were invited ,nor on the last date when the applications were required to be received i.e. 15.3.97, and not on the 1st of January following 15th of March 1997. On 1.1.98, the petitioner had not completed 20 years of age which is a minimum age prescribed under Rule 10 of the Rules of 1973 for recruitment on the post of Lecturer (Interior Decoration). 10. On 1.1.98, the petitioner had not completed 20 years of age which is a minimum age prescribed under Rule 10 of the Rules of 1973 for recruitment on the post of Lecturer (Interior Decoration). 10. Likewise, we do not find any merit in the contention that Rule 10 of the Rules of 1973 as amended, by which the date of minimum age for recruitment has been increased from 18 years to 20 years for entry to the public service is ultra vires any provision of the Constitution of India. 11. Minimum qualifying age is firstly a matter of policy and secondly there is direct nexus between fixing the age of entry in the service and presently the age at which the requisite qualification is likely to be acquired by persons generally. By 1996, the graduation curriculum has been uniformly applied in all States as 10+2+3 that is to say 15 years and the minimum age of entry in the Class-I is ordinarily 5 or more. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved in providing the age of 20 years as a minimum age for entry in the service by keeping in view the minimum academic qualification of a graduate degree required for such post. A candidate who has regularly followed his education would not be eligible to apply merely because an exceptionally bright person is able to complete the eligibility criteria earlier then that age will not make a rule invalid which is otherwise founded on sound principle and apparently does not suffer from arbitrariness or unreaosnableness. In fixing the minimum recruitment age, the policy also takes into consideration the total span of service which a candidate is likely to have at the age of superannuation. Moreover, for exceptional cases the Govt. has been entrusted with power to relax the rules as to age, so that in appropriate case such bright person may not suffer. 12. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the contention that by enhancing the minimum age for recruitment to the service for 18 years to 20 years, the rules framing authority has acted arbitrarily so as to hold the rules to be ultra vires. 13. 12. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the contention that by enhancing the minimum age for recruitment to the service for 18 years to 20 years, the rules framing authority has acted arbitrarily so as to hold the rules to be ultra vires. 13. Lastly, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that looking to the circumstances of the present case and the fact that the petitioner has acquired qualification at the much earlier age than what is expected now under the rules should not work against the interest of the petitioner. It has also been brought to the notice of the court that in fact petitioner was directed to participate in the recruitment process by the orders of this Court and the petitioner has done exceptionally well in the selection test. 14. It is borne out from the Court proceedings that the result of the petitioner was called by the Court in a sealed cover on 9.2.98 and on 6.3.98. The Court recorded that the result sheet of the petitioner shows that the petitioner obtains more marks than the candidate last selected. It is also not in dispute that even before recruitment process was started, the petitioner has been found suitable for appointment as a Part-time Lecturer in 1996. With all these backgrounds, the attention of this Court was invited to Rule 31 of the Rules of 1973, which confers power on the administrative department of the Government to relax any of the provisions of these rules relating to age or experience of any persons. It may, with the concurrence of the Department of Personnel and administrative Reforms and in consultation with the commission, wherever the post is in purview of PSC, by orders relax the relevant provisions of these rules to such extent and subject to such conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. 15. This submission of the learned counsel for the appellant merits consideration. It is true that the petitioner-appellant has shown the exceptional quality of acquiring the requisite qualification at much tender age and has also performed above the candidates who have been selected for the post of Lecturer (Interior Decoration) and that the petitioner has also gained experience of teaching in the Polytechnic College as a Part-time Lecturer. It is true that the petitioner-appellant has shown the exceptional quality of acquiring the requisite qualification at much tender age and has also performed above the candidates who have been selected for the post of Lecturer (Interior Decoration) and that the petitioner has also gained experience of teaching in the Polytechnic College as a Part-time Lecturer. Moreover, it is apparent that the petitioner fails to fall in the line of eligibility by few months only. In fact she has become eligible by the time selections were completed and appointments were offered. 16. In these circumstances, it appears to be a fit case where the competent authority may consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically for grant of relaxation in the age and if otherwise found suitable to offer appointment subject to availability of vacancies.With the aforesaid observations, the appeal is disposed of accordingly.Appeal Disposed of as Above. *******