Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 2778 (RAJ)

Vinay Kumar Jain v. State of Rajasthan

2011-12-16

ARUN MISHRA, NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN

body2011
Hon'ble JAIN-I, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition with a prayer that respondents be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and Judicial Magistrate advertised by Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer vide its advertisement dated 22nd July, 2011 treating him within age limit. 3. The petitioner, in his writ petition, has averred that no advertisement was issued for the post of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate in the years 2009 and 2010 by the respondents and in case, his age is counted as on 1st January, 2009 and 1st January, 2010, then he would have been within age limit, therefore, action of the respondents in debarring the petitioner from being participated in the selection process on the ground of overage is illegal. 4. The petitioner has referred proviso (iv) of Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, which reads as under :- “If a candidate would have been entitled in respect of his/her age to appear at the examination in any year in which no such examination was held, he/she shall be deemed to be entitled in respect of his/her age to appear at the next following examination”. 5. From the application of the petitioner – Annex.2, it appears that date of birth of petitioner is 10th August, 1974, advertisement – Annex.1 was issued on 22nd July,2011, wherein it is provided that applicant must have attained the age of 23 years and must not have attained the age of 35 years as on 1st January, 2012, however, if a candidate would have been entitled in respect of his/her age to appear at the examination in any year in which no such examination was held, he/she shall be deemed to be entitled in respect of his/her age to appear at the next following examination. An explanation was also added in the advertisement that for the earlier examination year 2008, the age limit was counted as on 1st January, 2009, therefore, age limit in the present advertisement is being counted as on 1st January, 2012, therefore, the candidates, who were eligible as on 1st January, 2010 and 1st January, 2011, would also be entitled to get age relaxation. As per date of birth of the petitioner, the petitioner has attained the age of 37 years, 4 months and 21 days as on 1st January, 2012, therefore, he was not eligible on 1.1.2010 and 1.1.2011 also. The benefit of proviso (iv) of Rule 17 has already been given in the advertisement issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. 6. So far as relaxation in age is concerned, proviso (v) was inserted after proviso (iv) to Rule 17 vide Notification dated 10.6.2011, which reads as under:- “(v) If for any reason, the written examination/interview is cancelled in any particular year, it shall be open to the Recruiting Authority to grant age relaxation to the candidate to appear in the next examination”. As per new proviso (v), a candidate becomes eligible for relaxation in age, if for any reason, the written examination/interview is cancelled in any particular year. It is not a case of petitioner that in any of the year, the examination/interview was cancelled. The validity of the Rule has not been questioned in the writ petition. It is also relevant to mention that even the order or reason rejecting the candidature of the petitioner has not been placed on record so as to examine its correctness in the light of submission of learned counsel for petitioner and with the assistance of the provisions of the Rules. The petitioner has simply stated that action of the respondents in debarring the petitioner from participating in the selection process on the ground of overage is not legal, however, from the facts narrated above, which have been taken from writ petition, it is clear that the petitioner is unable to make out any case in his favour. 7. In view of above discussions, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. The stay application also stands dismissed.