ORDER : 1. These writ petitions were filed by the petitioners who have appeared in Sub Inspector Recruitment Examination, 2021, and further have applied in pursuant to advertisement dated 17.07.2025 issued by RPSC for recruitment on post of Sub Inspectors and Platoon Commander (RAC). 2. The core question before us is whether the petitioners are entitled for appropriate age relaxation so that they may appear in examination to be held in pursuant to advertisement dated 17.07.2025. 3. Mr. Bhuvnesh Sharma, AAG put in appearance on behalf of Home Department and DGP whereas Mr. M.F. Baig put in appearance on behalf of RPSC in all matters. 4. At the request of learned counsel for the parties, we are deciding these writ petitions at this stage. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The lead matter is Suraj Mal Meena and Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16031/2025 and for ready reference we are reproducing the prayer as under:- “(i) the impugned advertisement dated 17.07.2025 to the extent of not providing age relaxation to the candidates who appeared in SI Recruitment Examination-2021 in pursuance to advertisement no. 08/2020-21 dated 03.02.2021 may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary and same may kindly be quashed and set aside; (ii) The respondents may kindly be directed by issuing appropriate, writ, order or direction in the nature thereof: (a) to issue corrigendum advertisement for granting appropriate age relaxation to the candidates who appeared in SI Recruitment Examination 2021 in pursuance to advertisement no. 08/2020-21 dated 03.02.2021. (b) to grant appropriate age relaxation in the impugned advertisement dated 17.07.2025 to the candidates who appeared in SI Recruitment Examination 2021 in pursuance to advertisement no 08/2020-21 dated 03.02.2021; (c) to treat humble petitioners eligible and within age limit for the post of Sub- Inspector/Platoon Commander in pursuance to advertisement dated 17.07 2025, (d) to grant appointment to humble petitioners, if they are found in merit, on the post of Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander in pursuance to advertisement dated 17.07.2025 with all consequential benefits. iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly also be passed in favour of the Petitioner.” 6. iii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly also be passed in favour of the Petitioner.” 6. After filing of these writ petitions and service of notice, an interim order is issued on basis of submissions of learned counsel for the parties and learned counsel appearing for the RPSC whereby a provisional permission has been granted to the petitioners to appear in the examination subject to outcome of these writ petitions. The RPSC has already accepted the application forms of the petitioners who claimed themselves as to be over aged due to time span between two advertisement dated 03.02.2021 and 17.07.2025. This matter can be resolved if the Government allows age relaxation of four years instead of three years as per advertisement dated 17.07.2025. The issue which we are considering is in larger interest but it is not a public interest litigation rather the petitioners are candidates and they are aggrieved persons. 7. The material on record clearly indicate that an interim order is already issued in favour of the petitioners that their candidature shall be considered provisionally by the RPSC and the RPSC considering the provisional candidature shall permit the petitioners to appear in the forthcoming examination. While disposing of this writ petitions, it is appropriate to affirm the interim order with minor modification in the manner that the petitioner be permitted to appear in the examination but it will not create any right in their favour unless age relaxation is granted to them if they are over aged as per advertisement dated 17.07.2025. Accordingly, the rights of the petitioners are also protected by this order. 8. In case of Kailash Chand Sharma and Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13806/2024 , a Co-ordinate Bench has considered challenge to recruitment on post of Sub-Inspector conducted by RPSC in pursuant to advertisement No.08/2021 dated 03.02.2021. The challenge is made on basis of paper leak, use of unfair means on mass scale, fraud, cheating and role of money in conducting examination and selection of candidates. 9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while allowing the writ petitions on 28.08.2025, primarily on ground of wide spread paper leak and deep-rooted corruption involving Members of RPSC has recommended cancellation of examination for recruitment of Sub Inspectors, 2021. 9. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while allowing the writ petitions on 28.08.2025, primarily on ground of wide spread paper leak and deep-rooted corruption involving Members of RPSC has recommended cancellation of examination for recruitment of Sub Inspectors, 2021. The recruitment process was termed as tainted on basis of paper leak, use of unfair means and other irregularities. The observation clearly indicate that the malpractices were so severe that entire process cannot be considered as fair from any aspect. The Co-ordinate Bench has also observed about role of Members of RPSC directly involved in paper leak and other malpractices. 10. The judgment dated 28.08.2025 is challenged by the successful candidates as well as by the State Government before the Division Bench of this Court and same is pending and likely to be considered in coming weeks. 11. In the meantime, the stay order dated 08.09.2025 passed by the Division Bench is challenged before Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the case of candidates, who challenged the tainted selection process by filing writ petition(s) has stayed the order of the Division Bench and directed for disposal of Writ Appeal within a period of three months. 12. The material on record and the circumstances mentioned hereinabove clearly indicate that the recruitment process initiated for Sub Inspectors in year 2021 remain in limbo and still it is undecided. Not only selected candidates are in state of uncertainty but the students, who appeared in public examination are also uncertain about outcome of their challenge. 13. It is always expected that a process adopted in conducting public examination should be transparent, fair and credible. The examination must be conducted smoothly and sufficient steps be taken to prevent use of unfair means such as paper leak, cheating and malpractices. It is duty of the Government to ensure the integrity of the examination system, thereby upholding the value and reliability of assessment outcomes. The persons involved in conducting the examination remain accountable by following norms, standards and guidelines. 14. Recent events clearly indicate that the Government has lost its credibility in organizing public examination as it has measurably failed in implementing legal and procedural framework put in place to ensure fair and credible selection process for public posts. 15. The persons involved in conducting the examination remain accountable by following norms, standards and guidelines. 14. Recent events clearly indicate that the Government has lost its credibility in organizing public examination as it has measurably failed in implementing legal and procedural framework put in place to ensure fair and credible selection process for public posts. 15. Recently, in an article on bbc.com/news/articles titled as “How exam scandals threaten the future of India’s youth” posed a question:- “Why we are losing faith in our exam system” A Youth has asked: “We just don’t understand what is going on”. Even in another article on Al Jazeera web portal, an Indian youth has expressed her anger in words “the Government is shielding corrupt people.” 16. The New York Times has recently published two articles titled as “Indian Thieves see a gold mine in examination for Government posts” and “India’s exam leaks underline the Nation’s Bigger Problem”. We are reproducing some lines from said articles:- “Indian thieves are exploiting government exams as a highly lucrative target for criminal gangs because government jobs are extremely coveted in India. Criminal networks engage in exam paper leaks and employ a pyramid structure involving procurers, middlemen, local agents, and customers who pay large sums to fraudulently secure government employment. For example, in the case of the Uttar Pradesh constable exam, police investigations traced exam paper leaks from village-level agents to higher tiers, leading to arrests and plans for high-security retests. This phenomenon reflects the deep desperation and economic pressure driving mass corruption as there are far more applicants than available jobs, making the exams a “gold mine” for thieves and cheaters who profit from the situation.” “Indian government job exams have become a fertile ground for organized crime, exploiting the intense demand for secure jobs and the relatively rigid supply. This has a significant social impact, undermining meritocracy and public trust in government recruitment.” 17. Here in this case, the candidates have approached this Court as they have no other means of ventilating their grievances. The Government remains indecisive and further they are largely influenced by different lobby groups, which creates a pressure on the political system. These lobby groups generally represents influential castes having power to swing votes from any political party, thus having power to influence political process. The Government remains indecisive and further they are largely influenced by different lobby groups, which creates a pressure on the political system. These lobby groups generally represents influential castes having power to swing votes from any political party, thus having power to influence political process. Therefore, the candidates are before us seeking relief of relaxation in age while pursuing their candidature in forthcoming examination of Sub-Inspectors to be organized in pursuant to advertisement dated 17.07.2025. 18. Earlier advertisement was issued on 03.02.2021 and on 01.01.2022, the required maximum age was 25 years for attaining eligibility under the advertisement. There was a general age relaxation of two years and granted to all candidates. The recruitment process in pursuant to the advertisement dated 03.02.2021 has now been completed but same is challenged before this Court by filing Civil Writ Petitions and on 14.08.2025 these Civil Writ Petitions were allowed and the selections were found to be tainted and the Court has directed for consideration for cancellation (scrapping) of all selections. The challenge is still pending before the Division Bench of this Court, thus, the recruitment process initiated by advertisement dated 03.02.2021 is in serious doubt or under cloud. 19. Now a fresh recruitment process has been initiated vide advertisement dated 17.07.2025 and as per notification, the required maximum age on 01.01.2026 is 25 years but three years general relaxation is provided in maximum age, as no advertisement has been issued after 2021. 20. The recruitment process is initiated under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1989’), and Rule 11 of the Rules of 1989 prescribes age criteria to be adopted at the time of direct recruitment to the services. According to Rule 11 (3) of the Rules of 1989, 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 over age by more than three years. The relaxation is already provided under the notification in accordance with Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1989. Now comes Rule 46 of the Rules of 1989 which empowers the Administrative Department of the Government to relax the Rules in two circumstances firstly age and secondly requirement of experience for recruitment. The relaxation is already provided under the notification in accordance with Sub-Rule 3 of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1989. Now comes Rule 46 of the Rules of 1989 which empowers the Administrative Department of the Government to relax the Rules in two circumstances firstly age and secondly requirement of experience for recruitment. The Administrative Department of the Government is empowered under Rule 46 of the Rules of 1989 to further relax the age, considering the circumstances and hardship of the candidates. 21. Learned AAG has referred judgment in case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Mahendra Kumar and Others , Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1151/2013 (judgment dated 25.03.2014) wherein the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, after considering several judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court including Dr. Ami Lal Bhat Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 1997 JT (6 ) SC 72 has observed that it is within the domain of employer concern that in which category of service, the benefit of age relaxation has to be provided. The benefit of age relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right and, therefore, the claim for age relaxation in the maximum age limit is not based on sound proposition of law and liable to be rejected. 22. In case of Pawan Kumar Bardiya & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8046/2008) (judgment dated 08.08.2011) , a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after considering the legal position has directed the respondents to consider and decide the representation with regard to relaxation of age of the petitioners and observed that if Government decides to give benefit of relaxation of age then petitioner would be entitled for consequential benefit if they stand in merit. 23. In case of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams vs K. Jotheeswara Pillai (D) by LRs. & Others, (2007) 9 SCC 461 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that age relaxation can never be given by a Court’s order. It is also a settled proposition of law that the qualification will have to be decided on date of notification. In case of Mallikarjuna Rao and Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. & Others, (2007) 9 SCC 461 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that age relaxation can never be given by a Court’s order. It is also a settled proposition of law that the qualification will have to be decided on date of notification. In case of Mallikarjuna Rao and Ors. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (1990) 2 SCC 707 Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the Constitution does not permit the Court to direct the executive in matters of policy or to sermonize qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of legislature or executive. 24. Having considered aforesaid legal position and taking note of the circumstances as mentioned hereinabove, it is a fit case wherein the Government may consider relaxation of age due to following reasons:- “(i) The recruitment conducted in pursuant to notification dated 03.02.2021 by RPSC is in limbo and facing a big legal hurdle. The Single Judge Bench of this Court has already terms the recruitment process as shame and bogus and recommended its cancellation. (ii) The candidates particularly youth and students have a right of fair chance as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India and they are entitled to demand a fair competition on recruitment of public post. (iii) Rule 46 of Rules 1989 provides for age relaxation and the Administrative Department is duty bound to consider the issue of age relaxation, in considering the attaining circumstances. (iv) A Sub Committee constituted by State Government vide order dated 01.10.2024 has recommended consideration of relaxation of age in future examination. (v) After notification dated 03.02.2021, the only notification issued for recruitment is current notification dated 17.07.2025. The period from 03.02.2021 to 17.07.2025 is four years but relaxation of three years is provided under Rule 11 (3) of the Rules of 1989 and same is mentioned in notification dated 17.07.2025. Therefore, it is duty of the Government to protect the interest of youth and students and give effect to the Rule 11 (3) with Rule 46 of the Rules of 1989 in greater public interest.” 25. In view of discussion made hereinabove, I am in agreement with the suggestions moved by learned counsel Mr. Therefore, it is duty of the Government to protect the interest of youth and students and give effect to the Rule 11 (3) with Rule 46 of the Rules of 1989 in greater public interest.” 25. In view of discussion made hereinabove, I am in agreement with the suggestions moved by learned counsel Mr. M.F. Baig appearing on behalf of the RPSC that provisional permission has already been granted by different Co-ordinate Benches to the candidates for consideration of their candidature and protected their candidature till declaration of result, therefore, the matter can be disposed subject to outcome of decision by the Government. 26. Learned AAG also added that eight weeks’ time be granted to the Government for taking a decision in accordance with views expressed by the Court and if any candidate who is successful and still aggrieved from the decision he may approach this Hon’ble Court by filing a fresh petition. 27. Learned counsels appearing for the petitioners have agreed to the proposition to law as suggested to them at bar by learned AAG and learned counsel appearing for the RPSC and also by the Court. We have not expressed any opinion on merits of contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, this order will not come in way to pursue their grievances, if Government decides against them. 28. Therefore, considering the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, these writ petitions are disposed of in following terms:- “(I) The respondent Nos. We have not expressed any opinion on merits of contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, this order will not come in way to pursue their grievances, if Government decides against them. 28. Therefore, considering the scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, these writ petitions are disposed of in following terms:- “(I) The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to consider relaxation of age to the candidates who appeared in public examination for recruitment of Sub-Inspectors in pursuant to advertisement dated 03.02.2021 issued by the RPSC, Ajmer and have re-applied in pursuant to advertisement dated 17.07.2025 issued by RPSC for the post of Sub Inspectors and Platoon Commander (RAC), so that they may not be debarred on ground of attaining maximum permissible age; (II) The State Government is directed to consider the suggestions as mentioned hereinabove and take a decision within eight weeks from date of receipt of copy of the order, regarding relaxation of age to candidates as mentioned hereinabove; (III) The RPSC will permit the candidates, who filed an application in pursuant to advertisement dated 17.07.2025 and are provisionally permitted by this Court and Co-ordinate Benches in these writ petitions, to appear in said examination to be held in pursuant to advertisement dated 17.07.2025; (IV) The RPSC is also directed to declare the result of the candidates who appeared in said examination, in pursuant to permission granted to them by these petitions; (V) If any of the petitioner(s) is successful in written examination and if he/she is aggrieved from any decision of the Government made in pursuant to directions under this order then he/she will have a right to re-approach this Court by filing a fresh writ petition.” 29. At this stage, we are not deciding any legal issue on merits and we are leaving the legal issue of relaxation of age to be open and to be considered at later stage as and when such issue is considered on merits. 30. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petitions is disposed of with pending applications, if any.