Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1375 (RAJ)

Ranjana Mishra v. State of Rajasthan

2014-07-10

VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - Aggrieved of her ineligibility with reference to maximum age limit prescribed, the petitioner has approached this Court praying for the following reliefs:- (i) the condition regarding maximum age limit prescribed in the advertisement (Annexure-1) i.e. the condition of maximum age limit for the post of Lecturer (History) as 33 years may kindly be held as illegal and the same may kindly be ordered to be deleted from the said advertisement; (ii) by an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondent R.P.S.C. may kindly be directed to allow the humble petitioner to appear in the interview and they may be further directed to consider the candidature of the humble petitioner for the post of Lecturer (History) as per her merit; (iii) by an appropriate writ order or direction it may kindly be held that in view of the relaxation provided for Government employees i.e. five years and five years for women candidates, the humble petitioner is entitled to appear in the process of selection of the post of Lecturer (History) and she is also entitled to get appointment on the said post; (iv) any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may also be passed in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the humble petitioner. 2. The skeleton essential material facts indispensable for appreciation of the controversy raised in the instant writ application needs to be first noticed. The petitioner in response to an advertisement dated 8th June, 2001, issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commission', for short), applied for consideration of her candidature for appointment to the post of Lecturer (History). The advertisement prescribed maximum eligibility age limit of 40 years as on 1st July, 2002, for the category of the petitioner (in service candidates), who participated in the selection process while working as Teacher Grade-III. However, the candidature of the petitioner was declined informing her vide communication dated 18th January, 2003, for she being overage in view of the condition of maximum age limit provided under the rules and in advertisement as her date of birth being 30th June, 1961 and thus, she was determined as overaged by 1 year and 3 days, by the respondent-Commission. The petitioner addressed a representation referring to sub-rule 2 of the Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, which provides maximum age limit as 40 years for in service Government servant candidates, and adding on to it a relaxation of 5 years for women candidate vide amendment dated 4th May, 2001; she was within the eligibility limit of 45 years. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that the advertisement provided for 33 years of maximum age as 1st July, 2002; whereas there is no such stipulation in the Rajasthan Service Rules. Thus, relying upon the provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules, she claimed the maximum age limit for a in service Government candidate as 40 years and adding a relaxation of 5 years thereto, for she being a woman candidate, the petitioner claimed herself as eligible and entitled for consideration of her candidature. 3. In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondent-Commission has filed its counter-affidavit pleading that the application of the petitioner was scrutinised and she was found over-aged as on 1st July, 2002, by 1 year and 3 days and she was informed to this effect vide communication dated 18th January, 2003. The representation of the petitioner was also responded declining her claim. It is admitted by the respondent-Commission that the petitioner being a Government employee, was entitled to participate in the selection process with the relaxed criteria of maximum age of 40 years only, whereas the petitioner has claimed relaxation of 5 years in addition to 40 years, being a woman candidate, and thus, she has claimed her eligibility upto the age of 45 years. The claim as staked by the petitioner is absolutely misconceived and this fact was communicated to her vide communication dated 4th February, 2003, although the petitioner was interviewed on 20th March, 2003, in compliance of the interim direction issued by this Court on 13th March, 2003. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the materials available on record. 5. The learned counsel for the parties have advanced their arguments reiterating the pleaded facts, which have been set out herein above. The contentious pleadings and vociferous arguments received may thoughtful consideration in the light of settled proposition of law. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the materials available on record. 5. The learned counsel for the parties have advanced their arguments reiterating the pleaded facts, which have been set out herein above. The contentious pleadings and vociferous arguments received may thoughtful consideration in the light of settled proposition of law. 6. It is not in dispute that even the advertisement provided for maximum eligibility age of 40 years for the Government employee/in service candidate, as stipulated in the advertisement under Clause-10 sub-clause (7). The claim of the petitioner for further relaxation of age than the one mentioned in the advertisement and the rules, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to substantiate his argument that the petitioner though was 41 years 3 days of age as on 1st July, 2002, was still eligible by her entitlement for further relaxation of 5 years, being a woman candidate. Be that as it may, in the face of stipulation under the rules of maximum eligibility age being 33 years, and 5 years relaxation provided for candidates in the service of the State Government, therefore, maximum age limit could be 38 years. However, since the advertisement made a stipulated of 40 years by relaxing the maximum age criteria for the candidates in the service of the State Government, but in view of the admitted fact that the petitioner was even beyond the maximum age limit of 40 years as on 1st July, 2002; the claim is not sustainable in law. 7. No provision of any law or any rule has been indicated to support the contention that the petitioner would be entitled to 5 years relaxation in addition to the relaxed criterion of 40 years, for candidates in the service of the State Government for she being a woman candidate. 8. The candidature of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the respondent-Commission. It is settled law that the matter of age relaxation by prescribing the age limit; classification/categorization/relaxation, is within the domain of the Legislature or the statutory authorities, who are vested with the power to frame the terms and conditions of the service. 8. The candidature of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the respondent-Commission. It is settled law that the matter of age relaxation by prescribing the age limit; classification/categorization/relaxation, is within the domain of the Legislature or the statutory authorities, who are vested with the power to frame the terms and conditions of the service. Admittedly, the petitioner was beyond the maximum age limit of eligibility of 40 years, and therefore, she is not entitled for any writ, order or direction by this Court contrary to law. 9. In the case of Peetha Ram Verma v. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2001 (3) RajasthanLR 311 , the Division Bench of this Court while dealing with the somewhat similar controversy observed thus:- "We have already noticed Rule 4 and Rule 11-B of the Rules of 1962. There is no provision in the Rules for relaxation of the age than the one mentioned in the Rules. It is settled proposition of law that no direction contrary to the rules can ever be issued. In our opinion, the appellant is not entitled for any relief of age relaxation as contended by fixing the age limit classification/categorization/relaxation is primarily for the legislature or for the statutory authority charged with the duty of framing the terms and conditions of service. If looked at from the point of the authority making it, there is no discrimination and the classification is found to rest on a reasonable basis and, therefore, the rule as it stands, has to be upheld. The Supreme Court in many cases, has held that the court cannot issue a mandamus to violate the law or to act in violation of the law. The court cannot perform the legislative functions and that the court has no power to act contrary to the existing law." 10. In the result, the writ application preferred on behalf of the petitioner is devoid of any substance and lacks in merit, hence, deserves to be dismissed. 11. Ordered accordingly. 12. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******