Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 319 (RAJ)

Raju Ram v. Union of India

2020-02-04

DINESH MEHTA

body2020
JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. The present writ petition has been preferred for following reliefs: "(i) The impugned rejection slip Ann./8 dated 9.1.2020 issued by the Assistant Commandant, Member II, 114 Bn. BSF may very kindly be quashed and set aside; (ii) The respondents may very kindly be directed to grant the relaxation in upper age limit to the petitioner for the year the examinations for the posts of Constables (GD) were not conducted i.e. for the year 2016, 2017 and upto 21.7.2018; (iii) The respondents may very kindly be directed to allow the petitioner for the Detailed Medical Examination (DME); (iv) Any other appropriate order or relief which is deemed fit and proper may very kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner. (v) Costs be awarded in favour of the petitioner." 2. For claiming relaxation in upper age limit, petitioner has contended that prior to the subject Recruitment of 2018, respondent Staff Selection Board had undertaken recruitment exercise in the year 2015. According to petitioner as respondents have failed to conduct recruitment for Rifleman (GD) for three years, the petitioner is entitled for equal relaxation in the age. 3. Mr. Pareek, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that it was the fault of the respondents in not determining yearwise vacancies and initiating recruitment process for three long years in accordance with the scheme and as such, petitioner, who has become over age during the period interregnum cannot be deprived of his right to seek appointment. 4. It was also argued by learned counsel that not only petitioner's application form was accepted, but he was also permitted to appear in the written examination and to take part in PST and PET and it was only at the time of final selection, that he was scooped out of the process on the ground of having crossed the maximum age limit prescribed in the advertisement. 5. In support of his arguments that the petitioner is entitled for age relaxation, learned counsel cited the following three judgments, which are being dealt with one by one. 6. Prakash Chand etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 1990 (2) RLR page 1 : A perusal of factual backdrop of this case reveals that a notification dated 21.12.1988 was issued for filling up the posts of Constables. 6. Prakash Chand etc. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. 1990 (2) RLR page 1 : A perusal of factual backdrop of this case reveals that a notification dated 21.12.1988 was issued for filling up the posts of Constables. According to the advertisement a candidate was required to be within age-bracket of 18-25 years as on 1.1.1990. However, the Rules were amended and a new notification dated 19.8.1989 came to be published whereby upper age limit was reduced from 25 to 21. Considering the plight of the petitioner who was eligible as per the eligibility criteria of the first advertisement and became ineligible as a result of cancellation of the advertisement and reduction in upper age limit, this Court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to hold fresh selection for petitioner and other similarly situated candidates. It is to be noted that Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 was however not declared unconstitutional. 7. Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. Vs. UP Public Service Commission & Ors. (2008) 17 SCC 703 , A careful reading of the judgment and rule 10 reproduced therein shows that there was a provision for grant of relaxation in case of non-holding of the examination. Relevant proviso to Rule 10 reads thus: "Provided further that where a candidate was eligible in age to appear at the examination in any year of recruitment in which no such examination was held, he shall be deemed to be eligible in age to appear in the next following examination." 8. Hemraj Regar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 3011/2017, decided on 16.2.2017): This case emanates from Rule 2 of Rajasthan Various Service (Fourth Amendment) Rules, 2008, which reads thus: "If a candidate would have been entitled in respect of his/her age for 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." 9. A perusal of the above quoted provision shows that there was a clear stipulation for grant of relaxation in case of non-holding of the recruitment. 10. If he/she is not overage by more than 3 years." 9. A perusal of the above quoted provision shows that there was a clear stipulation for grant of relaxation in case of non-holding of the recruitment. 10. In view of the analysis aforesaid, it is clear that the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are clearly distinguishable on facts and the Courts have issued direction to consider or grant relaxation in wake of Rules providing for such relaxation. 11. In contrast with the situation aforesaid, rules governing the present recruitment do not provide for relaxation in age in the event of recruitment not taking place. The scheme of recruitment for the post in question only provides for determination/calculation of the vacancies, which reads thus: "(II). CALCULATION OF VACANCIES Vacancies in a recruitment year will be calculated annually (calendar year basis). The recruitment will be completed before the end of the year." 12. Petitioner's contention that the scheme of recruitment enjoins upon the respondents to determine year-wise vacancies and then complete the process before the end of the year. Such stipulation casts a duty upon the respondents to do the recruitment exercise as mandated by the scheme and as the respondents have failed to do the needful as is required by the scheme, the petitioner cannot be deprived of his right of consideration; is untenable. 13. The scheme of recruitment simply enjoins upon the Selection Board and the respondent-department to determine year wise vacancies and to carry out the recruitment before the end of the year, without providing for any consequence or stipulation for age relaxation. In absence of any provision granting age relaxation, this Court is of the opinion that no writ can be issued to the respondents to provide age relaxation. 14. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that having allowed him to appear in written examination and PET & PST, the Assistant Commandant, BSF has no authority or jurisdiction to reject petitioner's candidature, is concerned, suffice it to observe that the petitioner having crossed the upper age-bar has wrongly applied for the post. In the opinion of this Court, the process of document verification includes verification of credentials in relation to eligibility and so also otherwise eligibility/suitability. As such, petitioner's rejection cannot be faulted with. 15. In the opinion of this Court, the process of document verification includes verification of credentials in relation to eligibility and so also otherwise eligibility/suitability. As such, petitioner's rejection cannot be faulted with. 15. This Court does not find any infirmity in the action of the respondents in rejecting petitioner's candidature. 16. As an upshot of the discussion aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed. The stay application also stands dismissed.