Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 236 (RAJ)

Prashant Akar v. Rajasthan High Court

2021-01-29

MANOJ KUMAR VYAS, SABINA

body2021
JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner has filed the petition alleging that he was entitled for relaxation of age by three years for the post of Stenographer Grade-III. 2. Case of the petitioner as per the writ petition, in brief, is that on 18.01.2020 an advertisement for the post of Stenographer-III was issued. Petitioner being eligible for the said post had applied for the post of Stenographer. As per the advertisement, minimum age prescribed on cut-off date, i.e., 01.01.2021 was 18 years and maximum age limit was 40 years. Date of birth of the petitioner was 06.10.1979. Earlier advertisement for the post of Stenographer was issued on 18.02.2017. Hence, the petitioner was entitled for relaxation upto three years in view of the amendment of Rule 9 of Rajasthan District Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986. 3. Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. Respondent no. 1 in its written statement has averred that the date of birth of the petitioner was 06.10.1979. Hence, petitioner was not eligible for the post as he was overage. In case, any advertisement had been issued on 01.01.2018 or 01.01.2019, petitioner would not have been eligible because the upper age prior to 27.02.2019 was 35 years. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the last advertisement for the post of Stenographer was issued in February 2017. Thereafter, the advertisement dated 18.01.2020 had been issued. Hence, in view of amendment of Rule 9 of the Rules, petitioner was entitled for age relaxation by three years. 5. Learned senior counsel for the respondents has submitted that in view of Para 2 and Para 4 of the reply submitted by the respondents, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. 6. Para 2 and Para 4 of the reply read as under:- "2. That the petitioner has asked for relaxation as no examination was conducted for the last three years for the post of Stenographer and as per the allegation of the petitioner, he is entitled for relaxation in terms of proviso (xi) to Rule 9 of the Rules of 1986. It is submitted that earlier advertisement for recruitment to the post of Stenographer for District Courts was issued on 18.02.2017 and the last date for submission of online application form was 18.03.2017. It is submitted that earlier advertisement for recruitment to the post of Stenographer for District Courts was issued on 18.02.2017 and the last date for submission of online application form was 18.03.2017. It may be pertinent to mention here that at the time of issuance of the said advertisement, the upper age limit prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1986 was 35 years and the cut-off date for calculating the age was the last date fixed for submission of applications. It is submitted that Rule 9 of the Rules of 1986 was amended on 27.02.2019 whereby the upper age limit was changed to 40 years. Thereafter, vide notification dated 04.10.2019, Rule 9 was again amended and it was provided that the age would be calculated on the first day of January next following the last date fixed or receipt of application instead of last date for submission of the application form. X-----------X-----------X-----------X-----------X----------X----------X----------X 4. That as per his own submissions the date of birth of the petitioner is 06.10.1979 hence he was not within the age at the time of last advertisement. As per proviso (xi) 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 three years. It is submitted that had the advertisement been issued on 01.01.2018 or 01.01.2019 the petitioner would not have been eligible because the upper age prior to 27.02.2019 was 35 years." 7. Amendment of Rule 9(xi) vide notification dated 28.01.2019 reads as under:- "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 three years." 8. In the present case, admittedly, earlier advertisement for recruitment for the post of Stenographer for District Courts was issued on 18.02.2017. At that time upper age limit prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules was 35 years and the cut-off date for calculating age was 18.03.2017. Rule 9 of the Rules was amended on 27.02.2019 and upper age limit was changed to 40 years. At that time upper age limit prescribed under Rule 9 of the Rules was 35 years and the cut-off date for calculating age was 18.03.2017. Rule 9 of the Rules was amended on 27.02.2019 and upper age limit was changed to 40 years. As per notification dated 04.10.2019 Rule 9 was again amended and it was provided that the age of the candidate would be calculated on the first day of January next following the last date fixed or receipt of application instead of the last date for submission of the application form. 9. When all the amendments of Rule 9 of the Rules are read together, it transpires that petitioner would not have been eligible in case any advertisement had been issued on 01.01.2018 or 01.01.2019 as the upper age at that relevant time was 35 years. Hence, the petitioner cannot claim any benefit on account of amendment of Rule 9(xi) of the Rules vide notification dated 28.01.2019. 10. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.