Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1346 (RAJ)

Hanuman Puri v. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur

2017-05-25

NIRMALJIT KAUR

body2017
JUDGMENT : Nirmaljit Kaur, J. 1. All the above-mentioned writ petitions shall stand decided by this common order as the issue involved is identical. 2. The prayer herein is to consider the candidature of the petitioner while providing age relaxation of non-recruitment year 2015 and 2016 in the ongoing selection process on the post of Lower Division Clerk/Stenographer Gr. II advertised vide Notification dated 18.02.2017. 3. For convenience, the facts are being taken from SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3479/2017. 4. Two separate advertisements for direct recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerk and Stenographer in District Courts and District Legal Service Authority were issued on 18.02.2017 under the provisions of Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1986"). The upper age limit in the said advertisement has been prescribed as 35 years for General candidates and a concession of 5 years has been provided to OBC Candidates i.e. the category to which the petitioner belongs. 5. While praying for the said relief, reliance was placed on Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 to contend that each District Judge has to fill up the vacancies every year. Reliance is also placed on the Amendment of the last proviso to Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Ministerial and Subordinate Service) Rules and Regulations, 1999, vide which the age relaxation is given upto the maximum of three years, in case no recruitment is held in a particular year. 6. Reply has been filed by the respondents. 7. The sole ground for seeking the relaxation by the petitioners is the Notification dated 23.09.2008 which prescribes for relaxation to be granted in favour of the candidates for the year no recruitment has been made. 8. The Rules of 1986 have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution for regulating appointments to the Ministerial Establishment of the Courts subordinate to the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1986 provides for age of a candidate applying for direct recruitment as under:- "9. Age: - A candidate for direct recruitment to any cadre must have attained the age of 18 years and must not have attained the age of 35 years on the last date fixed for submission of the application. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1986 provides for age of a candidate applying for direct recruitment as under:- "9. Age: - A candidate for direct recruitment to any cadre must have attained the age of 18 years and must not have attained the age of 35 years on the last date fixed for submission of the application. Provided that:- (i) the upper age limit shall be relaxed by 5 years in the case of a member of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes. (ii) the upper age limit shall be relaxed by 5 years in case of women candidates. (iii) the upper age limit for reservists, namely defence services personnel transferred to the reserve shall be 50 years. (iv) the upper age limit shall be relax-able for a period equal to the service rendered in the N.C.C. In the case of Cadet instructors and if the resultant age does not exceed the prescribed maximum age limit by more than 3 years, they shall be deemed to be within the prescribed age limit. (v) there shall be no restriction as to age for a candidate already serving in connection with the affairs of the State in a substantive or temporary capacity, having been so appointed prior to his attaining the age of 35 years. (vi) there shall be no age limit in the case of persons repatriated from East African countries of Kenya, Tanganyika, Uganda and Zanzibar. (vii) that the upper age limit mentioned above shall not apply in the case of an ex-prisoner who had served under the Government on a substantive basis on any post before his conviction and was eligible for appointment under the Rules. (viii) that in the case of other ex-prisoner the upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by a period equal to the term of imprisonment served by him provided he was not over age before conviction and was eligible for appointment under the Rules. (ix) there shall be no age limit in the case of widows and divorcee women. Explanation - In the case of widow, she will have to furnish a certificate of death of her husband from the Competent Authority and in the case of divorcee she will have to furnish the proof of divorce. 9. (ix) there shall be no age limit in the case of widows and divorcee women. Explanation - In the case of widow, she will have to furnish a certificate of death of her husband from the Competent Authority and in the case of divorcee she will have to furnish the proof of divorce. 9. The petitioner was duly granted the relaxation of 5 years in the upper age limit as extended to the category of OBC but in spite of the same, he is not within the prescribed criteria of the age. By the fourth Amendment to the Rajasthan Various Service Rules, 2008, various service rules as specified in the schedule appended with the Rules were also amended as mentioned in Column No. 2 against each of the service Rules, the following new provision was added: "If a candidate would have been entitled in respect of his/her direct recruitment in any year in which no such recruitment was held. He/she shall be deemed to be eligible in the next following recruitment, if he/she is not overage by more than 3 years." 10. However, a bare perusal of the schedule appended with the Rajasthan Various Service (fourth amendment) Rules, 2008 shows that the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 do not find mention in the same, meaning thereby that the age relaxation as claimed by the petitioner in the upper age limit prescribed under the Rules of 1986 is not applicable to the vacancies to be filled under the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986. Thus, benefit of age relaxation cannot be extended to the petitioners as per the Notification dated 23.09.2008. 11. In fact the matter is covered by the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs. Mahendra Kumar and Others, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1151/2013, decided on 25th March, 2014. 11. In fact the matter is covered by the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs. Mahendra Kumar and Others, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1151/2013, decided on 25th March, 2014. While setting aside the order of the learned Single Bench allowing the petitions praying for relaxation of 3 years in the upper age limit for recruitment on the post of Sub Inspector in Rajasthan Police under Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 held that the benefit of age relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right when the benefit of age relaxation in the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 was not provided by the State Government looking to the requirement of service in the Police Department. After referring to the various judgments rendered in the case of Jamaluddin vs. Jammu and Kashmir and Others, AIR 2012 SC 291 , RPSC vs. Smt. Anand Kanwar, Civil Appeal No. 52/1993, dated 08.02.1995, Dr. Ami Lal Bhat vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, JT 1997 (6) 72, Prem Ratan Modi vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2013 (1) WLC (Raj.) 39 and Malik Mazhar Sultan and Another vs. U.P. Public Service Commission and Others, (2006) 9 SCC 507 , the learned Division Bench of this Court held as under: "It appears that the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench in Prem Ratan Modi's case (supra) has not been applied in correct perspective in the impugned order. In the case in hand, the State Government, in its wisdom, has not provided benefit of age relaxation in the Rules of 1989 looking to the requirement of service in the police department, then it is not open to question the said decision of the State Government by claiming parity with other service rules or with other categories of service. The learned counsel for the appellant is right in arguing that no parity can be claimed by one category of service with other category of service and it is within the domain of the employer concerned that in which category of service, the benefit of age relaxation is to be provided. The learned counsel for the appellant is right in arguing that no parity can be claimed by one category of service with other category of service and it is within the domain of the employer concerned that in which category of service, the benefit of age relaxation is to be provided. The benefit of age relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right and, therefore, the claim of the respondent-petitioner for age relaxation in the maximum age limit while claiming parity with other categories of service is not based on sound proposition of law and, therefore, is liable to be rejected." 12. Similarly, in the present case as well and as submitted above, the petitioners are not entitled for any age relaxation in the upper age limit in terms of the Notification dated 23.09.2008 as the said benefit of age relaxation has not been made applicable and nor adopted under Rajasthan Subordinate Court Ministerial Service Rules, 1986. The petitioners, therefore, can neither claim any parity with other Department nor seek the age relaxation. 13. In view of the above, the writ petitions as well as the review petition are dismissed being devoid of merit.