JUDGMENT 1. - The contention of Mr. Rajendra Soni, the counsel for the appellant is that initially vide advertisement dated 20.1.1997, the posts of Lecturer in Hindi were advertised to be filled. However, the said advertisement was cancelled due to financial crisis or otherwise and then after a gap of 4 years, the same posts were re-advertised on 8.6.2001 and amended corrigendum was issued on 23.1.2002 and, therefore, the petitioner who was within prescribed age in the year 1997 is entitled to age relaxation for the period the posts remained vacant and no selection process was undertaken. He would urge that a legal right came to be vested in the petitioner in the year 1997 and that could not have been divested because of inaction or otherwise on the part of the respondents in not filling the vacant posts in that year. The counsel would submit that the action of the respondents in cancelling the candidature of the petitioner was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. He strongly placed reliance upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prakash Chand v. State of Rajasthan & Another, 1990 (2) RLR page 1 and a Single Judge decision in the case of Dr. Banshi Lal Jakhar v. State of Rajasthan, 2007 (2) CDR 1106 . 2. Mr. S.N. Kumawat, counsel for the respondent No. 1 (RPSC) relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court dated February 8, 1995 in Civil Appeal No. 52/1993, Rajasthan Public Service Commission v. Smt. Anand Kanwar & Others . 3. We may first notice the decision of this Court in the case of Prakash Chand, particularly, paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 thereof, upon which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the appellant. Paragraphs 21, 22 and 23 read thus: "21. We find that in the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Service (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules,, 1962 there is a Special provision regarding the age. The candidates who are eligible in a particular year, but are rendered ineligible in the subsequent years, they are treated as eligible to appear in the examination irrespective of age requirement in case no examination is held in the particular year in which they were eligible. It would be appropriate to quote proviso (9) to Rule 11(B) of these Rules: "11B. It would be appropriate to quote proviso (9) to Rule 11(B) of these Rules: "11B. Age-Notwithstanding anything contained regarding age limit in any of the Service Rules governing direct recruitment through the agency of the Commission to the posts in the State Service and in the Subordinate Services mentioned in Schedule I and in Schedule II respectively, a candidate for direct recruitment to the posts to be filled in by Combined Competitive Examinations conducted by the Commission under these Rules must have attained the age of 21 years and must not have attained the age of 28 years on the first day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of applications; Provided: (1) to (8) ......... (9) If a candidate would have been entitled in respect of his age to appear at the examination in any year in which no such examination was held, he shall be deemed to be entitled in respect of his age to appear at the next following examination." We also notice that in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 also similar provision is contained in Proviso (1) to Rule 10. This proviso is also reproduced for ready reference: "10. Age: A candidate for recruitment to the service may not have attained the age of 35 years on the first day of January next following the date of commencement of the examination by the Commission for recruitment to the Service: Provided: (i) That barring the first examination to be held under the provisions of these Rules, if a candidate would have been entitled in respect of his age to appear at an examination in any year in which no such examination was held, he shall be deemed to be entitled in respect of his age to appear at the next following examination." 22. Thus, under the Rules of 1962, for the posts included in the Rajasthan Administrative Service, Rajasthan Police Service, Rajasthan Accounts Service, Rajasthan Cooperative Service, Rajasthan Employment Exchange Service, Rajasthan State Insurance Service, Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Services, Rajasthan Subordinate Devsthan Service, Rajasthan Subordinate Cooperative Service, R.T.S. Service, Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Service, Rajasthan Food and Civil Supplies Subordinate Service and the various posts under the Rajasthan Subordinate Service (Recruitment and other Service Conditions) Rules, 1960 as well as under he Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955, a candidate is not denied consideration for direct recruitment on the ground of age limitation if he was within the age limit in a year in which the examination was not held. These provisions contained in the Rules of 1962 as well as the Rules of 1955 are intended to protect the rights of the persons against the failure of the competent authorities to hold selection for direct recruitment yearwise. The Rules of 1962 and the Rules of 1955 give benefit of relaxation in upper age limit, if examination is not held in a particular year. Even this is not necessary that there must have existed vacancies in that particular year. If the competent authority makes determination of vacancies for direct recruitment quota on yearly basis and fill them up regularly in the year in which the vacancies occur, no such difficulty could arise. However, in practice we find that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission as well as other appointing authorities are having multifarious functions to perform. The R.P.S.C. is required to make recruitment for over 50 services apart from consultative functions in the matter of framing of service rules and disciplinary actions in respect of the gazetted officers. It is more or less impossible for the RPSC to make regular selection yearwise. That leads to a situation where large number of eligible candidates are rendered ineligible on account of their having become over-age merely because in the particular year when they were eligible, recruitment is not made by the Competitive body or Commission or other authority. We do not find any justification as to why a provision like one contained in Rule 11 B of 1962 Rules or Rule 10 of 1955 Rules has not been made in other Rules. This would have eliminated wholly unnecessary litigation of this nature. 23. We do not find any justification as to why a provision like one contained in Rule 11 B of 1962 Rules or Rule 10 of 1955 Rules has not been made in other Rules. This would have eliminated wholly unnecessary litigation of this nature. 23. However, once we have held that there is an obligation to make yearwise determination of vacancies for direct recruitment as well as promotion, 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 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. So far as the promotion quota posts are concerned, all problems regarding eligibility, etc., are solved in view of the provisions contained in Rule 9(2) of 1974 Rules and Rule 10(2) of 1989 Rules. For direct recruitment quota, we have to take notice of Rule 9(1) and particularly, Clause (c) of 1974 Rules and Rule 10(1)(c) of 1989 Rules. We are of the view that the vacancies for direct recruitment must also be determined on yearly basis and efforts should be made to fill those vacancies during the course of the year. After determination of vacancies, the same shall be advertised immediately or within reasonable time, so that the candidates who are eligible, can apply. The process of selection may be completed at a subsequent point of time. In that event, the disputes relating to eligibility with reference to age and qualifications would be obviated. For the subsequent years, the same very process can be repeated. After the vacancies of different years are advertised the process of selection shall be held separately and panel shall be drawn separately, so that the charge of clubbing the vacancies may also not be levelled against the appointing authority. If, on account of administrative difficulties, vacancies for direct recruitment cannot be filled in for a particular year, the candidates who are within the age limit with reference to the vacancies of a particular year must be treated as eligible even\if the selection is held subsequently." 4. If, on account of administrative difficulties, vacancies for direct recruitment cannot be filled in for a particular year, the candidates who are within the age limit with reference to the vacancies of a particular year must be treated as eligible even\if the selection is held subsequently." 4. The Division Bench with reference to the provisions contained in Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1974 (particularly Rule 9 thereof) and Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (particularly Rule 10 thereof) held that these Rules provide for yearwise determination of vacancies and regular recruitment by the prescribed mode against yearly determined vacancies insofar as direct recruitment was concerned. The Division Bench referred to the Rajasthan State & Subordinate Service (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1962 that provide that candidates who are eligible in a particular year, but are rendered ineligible in the subsequent years, they are to be treated as eligible to appear in the examination irrespective of age requirement in case no examination was held in the particular year in which they were eligible. The Bench noticed some of the service rules like Rajasthan Administrative Service, Rajasthan Police Service, Rajasthan Accounts Service, Rajasthan Cooperative Service, Rajasthan Employment Exchange Service, Rajasthan State Insurance Service, Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Service, Rajasthan Subordinate Devasthan Service, Rajasthan Subordinate Cooperative Service, RTS service, Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Sub-ordinate Service, Rajasthan Food and Civil Supplies Subordinate Service and Rajasthan Judicial Service, where a candidate is not denied consideration for direct recruitment on the ground of age limitation, if he was within the age limit in the year in which the examination was not held. 5. The direct recruitment to the posts of Lecturer in Hindi, admittedly, is being made under Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 (for short, 'Rules of 1970'). The counsel for the appellant did not dispute that the Rules of 1970 do not have a provision that the candidates who were eligible in a particular year but were rendered ineligible in the subsequent years, they were to be treated as eligible to appear in the examination irrespective of age requirement in case no examination has held in the particular year in which i they were eligible.. We are afraid, for want of any provision in the Rules of 1970, the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Prakash Chand cannot be applied to the present fact situation. 6. We are afraid, for want of any provision in the Rules of 1970, the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Prakash Chand cannot be applied to the present fact situation. 6. We may now refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Anand Kanwar. That was a case where Anand Kanwar applied for he post of Senior Teacher in the year 1989 pursuant to the advertisement. At that time she had already crossed the age of 40. She appeared in the preliminary examination conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, "Commission") but at the time of viva-voce she was told that she was not eligible being overage and her candidature was i cancelled. Upon challenge of the cancellation of her candidature before this Court, the Division Bench held that the last advertisement was issued in the year 1983 and thereafter the advertisement was issued in the year 1989, i.e., after a lapse of about 6 years. If year-wise vacancies were not determined and if the advertisement was issued to fill the vacancies of six years by one advertisement, then the person's candidature cannot be rejected on that ground. The Division Bench held that competent authority cannot avoid the 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 were eligible in a particular year but became in-eligible on account of absence of determination of vacancies. The consideration of the matter by the Division Bench was held by the Supreme Court bordering on perversity. The Supreme Court held thus: "It is settled proposition of law that the eligibility of a candidate has to be determined on the basis of the terms and conditions of the advertisement in response to which the candidate applies. There is nothing on the record to show that the State Government was in any manner negligent or at fault in not making the direct recruitment during the period 1983-89. Be that as it may, the High Court was not justified in taking the clock back to the period when unfilled vacancies were existing and holding that since the respondent was eligible on the date when vacancies fell vacant. She continues to be so till the time the vacancies are filled. Be that as it may, the High Court was not justified in taking the clock back to the period when unfilled vacancies were existing and holding that since the respondent was eligible on the date when vacancies fell vacant. She continues to be so till the time the vacancies are filled. Due to inaction on the part of the State Government in not filling the posts year- wise, the respondent cannot get a right to participate in the selection despite being over-aged." 7. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court as afore-noticed, we find no merit in the contentions of the counsel for the appellant. The appellant is not entitled to age relaxation as claimed by her. 8. The appeal has to be dismissed and is dismissed accordingly.Appeal Dismissed. *******