(1 of 3) [CW-5627/2021] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5627/2021 Dinesh Kumar S/o Shri Haja Ram, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Ratanpur, Tehsil Raniwara, Sirohi (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.
4. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Bijarnia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ramdeen Choudhary for Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG Mr. Tarun Joshi, through Cisco Webex App JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 01/04/2021
1. According to the petitioner, the State has erred in granting only two years' relaxation whereas the relaxation ought to have been granted for four years, as the last recruitment took place in the year 2017.
2. Mr. Tarun Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent - RPSC, at the outset informs that the Jaipur Bench of this Court has decided the controversy vide its judgment dated 15.03.2021 in the bunch of cases led by Mukesh Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State of (Downloaded on 01/04/2021 at 09:01:55 PM) (2 of 3) [CW-5627/2021] Rajasthan & Ors : SB Civil Writ Petition No.2555/2021 and held that grant of age relaxation is exclusive domain of the employer and the same cannot be claimed as a matter of right.
3. The operative part of the aforesaid judgment dated 15.03.2021 reads thus :
"16. Accordingly, the power under Rule 11(a) Proviso (3) of the Rules of 1989 lays down as under:- "(3) however the upper age-limit mentioned above may be relaxed by three years in exceptional cases by appointing authority, after previous approval of Government."
17. The said power is exclusively within the administrative domain of the appointing authority with prior approval of the State Government and judicial review relating to the exercise of such power is not available with this Court as the discretion while exercising such a power is exclusively administrative one.
18. It is only in cases where the judicial process is of such a nature which creates arbitrariness or discrimination between similarly situated persons that this Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the anvil of the fundamental rights available to a citizen, such discriminatory order or arbitrary order may be set aside. However, a mandamus to the State Authorities to exercise discretionary power in a particular manner and to a particular extent is not available with this Court. In the present case, the appointing authority and in consultation with approval of the State has only granted two years age relaxation while exercising the power under Rule 11(a) proviso (3). The same cannot be said in any manner to be arbitrary.(Downloaded on 01/04/2021 at 09:01:55 PM)
(3 of 3) [CW-5627/2021]
19. Therefore, Keeping in view the scope as available with this Court, I do not find any ground to allow these writ petitions.
20. However, it is always open for the petitioners to approach the State Authorities for grant of age relaxation and if such discretion exercised by the State, the same would apply to all the candidates including those who have not approached the Court.
21. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed.
22. A copy of this order be placed in each file.
23.All pending applications shall also stand disposed of."
4. Following the judgment aforesaid, this writ petition is also dismissed.
5. Stay application also stand disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 193-skm/-(Downloaded on 01/04/2021 at 09:01:55 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)