Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 299 (RAJ)

Sheilesh Kumar Asopa v. State of Rajasthan

2019-01-23

DINESH MEHTA, SANGEET LODHA

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. By way of these writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking directions to the respondents to amend the Rule 17 of Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (for short "the Rules") to enhance the upper age limit for the persons serving in connection with the affairs of the State, Panchayat Samities, Zila Parishads and Public Sector Undertakings/Corporations in substantive capacity from 40 years to 45 years. 2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 639/19 has also questioned the legality of the notification dated 27.12.18, deleting the proviso (ii) to Rule 17 of the Rules, where under the upper age limit for in service candidates was provided as 40 years. 3. The facts relevant are that the respondent Rajasthan High Court issued an advertisement dated 15.11.18 notifying 197 vacancies in the cadre of Civil Judge to be filled in by way of Direct Recruitment. As per Rule 17 of the Rules, it is provided therein that a candidate for recruitment to the post must have attained the age of 23 years and must not have attained the age of 35 years on the 1st January, 2020. However, as per proviso (ii) to Rule 17, the upper age limit for in service candidate was prescribed as 40 years. 4. During the pendency of the recruitment process, the provisions of Rule 17 of the Rules have been amended vide notification dated 27.12.18 whereby while reducing the minimum age prescribed for 23 years to 21 years, the upper age limit has been enhanced from 35 years to 40 years. Further, the (ii) proviso to Rule 17 of the Rules prescribing upper age limit for in service candidate as 40 years, has been deleted. Pursuant to the amendment made inter alia in Rule 17 as aforesaid, the respondents have issued the amended advertisement dated 2.1.19 extending the benefits of inter alia Rule 17 of the Rules, amended as aforesaid to the candidates applying for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge. 5. Precisely, the contention of the petitioners is that the upper age limit for the general candidates having been enhanced from 35 years to 40 years, the upper age limit for in service candidates was required to be enhanced from 40 years to 45 years, keeping parity with the provisions in the various service Rules of the State prescribing upper age limit for the in service candidate as 45 years. It is submitted that instead of enhancing the upper age limit for in service candidates from 40 years to 45 years, the deletion of proviso (ii) to Rule 17 of the Rules, is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. 6. It is pertinent to note that under proviso (ii) to Rule 17, the upper age limit for in service candidate was provided as 40 years as against the upper age limit for general candidates provided as 35 years. But since, by way of the notification dated 27.12.18, the upper age limit for general candidates has been enhanced from 35 years to 40 years, the rule making authority considered it appropriate to delete the proviso (ii) to Rule 17 of the Rules, providing upper age limit for in service candidate as 40 years. The petitioners in service candidates cannot claim relaxation in the upper age limit as a matter of right. Apparently, while amending the provision as aforesaid, the rule making authority in its wisdom did not consider it appropriate to enhance the upper age limit for the in service candidates further from 40 years to 45 years, which in no manner could be considered to be illegal or arbitrary. It is not the law that in all the services under the State for different posts, the upper age limit prescribed for different categories must be the same and thus, the petitioners claim for enhancement of the upper age limit for in service candidates for the recruitment to the post of Civil Judge at par with the upper age limit as prescribed under other various service Rules of the State for different posts, cannot be countenanced by this court. 7. As a matter of fact, the writ petitions involving identical issue being D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 816/19 Manoj Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. " and other connected petitions, have already been dismissed by Jaipur Bench of this court vide order dated 11.1.19 with the observations as under: "Suffice to state that appointment of Judicial Officers in the Subordinate Courts is governed by Article 235 of the Constitution of India. Appointment to public service on the posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or State is governed by Part-XIV of the Constitution of India comprising Article 308 to 313 of the Constitution. Both stand on different footings. Appointment to public service on the posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or State is governed by Part-XIV of the Constitution of India comprising Article 308 to 313 of the Constitution. Both stand on different footings. No parity can be claimed by any person for being appointed to Subordinate Courts with condition of service for appointment to public service on the posts in connection with the affairs of the State." 8. In this view of the matter, these writ petitions also deserve to be dismissed. 9. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed in limine.