Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2267 (RAJ)

Purshottam Sharma v. State of Rajasthan

2008-09-26

PREM SHANKER ASOPA

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to-consider his candidature for the post of G.N.M. and not to reject the same on the ground of being overage. 2. Submission of counsel for the petitioner is that after 2004 to August, 2007, the respondents did not issue any advertisement for the post of GNM and during this period, the petitioner became overage. As per advertisement issued in August 2007, one is required not to attain age of 35 years on 1.1.2008. Since the date of birth of the petitioner is 20.2.1971, as on 1.1.2008 his age will be 36 years 10 months 19 days. Further submission of the counsel is that on account of inaction on the part of the State Government of not advertising vacancies every year, as has been done in some other services, the petitioner has become overage without there being any fault on his part. He further submits that under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, as per rule 38, in case of undue hardship, the State Government can relax the rule with respect to age. 3. Division Bench of this Court in Ashu Singh Shekhawat v. RPSC and others, DBSAW No. 1029 of 2007 vide its order dated 14.8.2007 has considered pari materia rule 46 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 and issued direction for submission of representation. . 4. I have gone through record of the writ petition and considered the submissions made by the counsel. 5. As per Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 (in short `the Rules') the vacancies are to be determined every year and the petitioner who was eagerly waiting for the advertisement but the same was not issued from the year 2004 to 2007 and in the meanwhile he became overage for a no fault of his. This has caused frustration. The Supreme Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan and another v. U.P. Public Service Commission and others, (2006) 9 SCC 507 in para 22 , in similar circumstances, held as under : "22. The Rules postulate timely determination of vacancies and timely appointments. The non-filing of vacancies for long not results in the avoidable litigation but also results in creeping of frustration in the candidates. The Rules postulate timely determination of vacancies and timely appointments. The non-filing of vacancies for long not results in the avoidable litigation but also results in creeping of frustration in the candidates. Further, non-filing of vacancies for a long time, deprives the people of the services of the judicial officers. This is one of the reasons of huge pendency of cases in the courts." 6. I am also of the view that the petitioner be given an opportunity to file representation before the State Government for age relaxation and the State Government will consider the same keeping in view provisions of Rule 38 of the Rules and aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court and further decide the representation of the petitioner before the selection.The writ petition is disposed of.Writ petition disposed of as above. *******