Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 163 (RAJ)

Jetha Ram Inaniya v. State of Rajasthan

2020-01-20

DINESH MEHTA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred inter alia seeking a direction to the respondents to consider petitioner's candidature as an ex-serviceman. 2. Facts relevant for the present purposes are that pursuant to an advertisement dated 04.11.2015, issued by the respondents for direct recruitment on the post of Patwari, giving last date of furnishing application form to be 10.12.2015, the petitioner submitted his application form in the ex-serviceman category, while he was still in service. 3. Before submitting his application form for the post aforesaid, the petitioner moved an application seeking retirement from the post of Hawaldar, which request was acceded to by the Army, vide order dated 06.01.2015. However, the order aforesaid made petitioner's retirement effective from 31.08.2016. 4. Petitioner's candidature was rejected by the respondents in view of the condition mentioned in para No. 9 of the advertisement, according to which a candidate seeking employment as ex-serviceman was required to retire by the last date of furnishing the application form. 5. The relevant condition No. 9 reads thus: ^^9- HkwriwoZ lSfudksa ds fy, %& ¼d½ HkwriwoZ lSfudksa ds vkjf{kr inksa ds fo#) vkosnu djus okys vkosnd dks vkosnu i= ÁkfIr dh vafre fnukad rd fu;ekuqlkj lsuk ls lsokfuo`r gks tkuk vko';d gS] vU;Fkk mUgsa vkj{k.k dk ykHk ns; ugha gksxkA** 6. Result of the written examination, conducted pursuant to the advertisement in question was declared on 24.03.2018, whereafter the State brought an amendment in Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-Serviceman) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1988') by way of notification dated 17.04.2018 and by way of Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Civil Service (Absorption of Ex-Serviceman) (Amendment) Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Amended Rules of 2018'), new Rule 6B was inserted, which reads thus: "Insertion of new rule 6B - After the existing rule 6A and before the existing rule 7 of the said rules, the following new rule 6B shall be inserted namely: 6B. Submission of proof of Retirement.- A person who has retired or is retiring within forthcoming one year, after earning his/her pension on the basis of no-objection certificate (NOC) from the competent authority, shall be eligible to apply for the post but he/she shall have to submit proof of retirement to the appropriate selection agency. Submission of proof of Retirement.- A person who has retired or is retiring within forthcoming one year, after earning his/her pension on the basis of no-objection certificate (NOC) from the competent authority, shall be eligible to apply for the post but he/she shall have to submit proof of retirement to the appropriate selection agency. (a) before appearing in the main examination, where selection is made through two stages of written examination and interview; (b) before appearing in examination where selection is made through written examination and interview; (c) before appearing in written examination or interview where selection is made through only written examination or only interview, as the case may be." 7. Questioning petitioner's rejection as an ex-serviceman, the present writ petition has been filed, inter alia contending that since the relevant Rules of 1988 have been amended by way of notification dated 17.04.2018, much before the result of written examination was declared, petitioner's candidature could not have been rejected. 8. Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that a perusal of Rule 6B of the Rules of 1988, inserted by notification dated 17.04.2018 leaves no room for ambiguity that the petitioner is eligible, as before the select list was issued i.e. on 12.07.2018, petitioner had retired. 9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 10. Essence of petitioner's contention is that since before the final select list was issued (12.07.2018), the Rules of 1988 stood amended, the amendment should be given full effect. According to learned counsel, petitioner's candidature ought to have been considered. 11. Before adjudicating upon the arguments advanced, it would be relevant to highlight that the amendment in the Rules of 1988 brought by notification dated 17.04.2018 has made the amendment effective from immediate effect or from 17.04.2018, as is evident from sub-rule (2) of rule 1 of the Amended Rules of 2018. 12. That apart, Rule 6B reproduced hereinabove, makes it abundantly clear that only such candidates can be granted benefit of Rule 6B, who have retired or are retiring within forthcoming one year. 13. The language used in Rule 6B clearly suggests that it was made applicable to the candidates, who have retired within one year of 17.04.2018 or who would be retiring. That apart amendment vide notification dated 17.04.2018 is available only from the date of its issuance. 14. 13. The language used in Rule 6B clearly suggests that it was made applicable to the candidates, who have retired within one year of 17.04.2018 or who would be retiring. That apart amendment vide notification dated 17.04.2018 is available only from the date of its issuance. 14. The petitioner's date of retirement is admittedly 31.08.2016, not within a year of the subject amendment. 15. As an outcome of the discussions aforesaid, this Court does not find any merit in petitioner's writ petition and the same is dismissed summarily. 16. The stay application is also dismissed.