HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1960/2020
Sharad Dadhich Son Of Shri Narendra Kumar Dadhich, Aged
About 25 Years, Resident Of Village Papurana, Tehsil Khetri,
District Jhunjhunu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief
Secretary To The Government, Home Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prahlad Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rupin Kala, GC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 01/10/2021
1. Admittedly, the petitioner has recently played in team India for Basketball and is a sports person.
2. Both the counsels therefore agree that the case may be decided in light of the Judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Mahendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2015 (1) RLW 721 (Raj.).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the provisions of Rule 11(3) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 which provides for relaxation of four years as per the amendment made in the year 2018 for the purpose. It would be apposite to quote the Rule 11(3) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules as under:-
(Downloaded on 05/10/2021 at 10:11:15 PM)
(2 of 4) [CW-1960/2020] "(3) however the upper age-limit mentioned above may be relaxed by four years in exceptional cases by appointing authority, after previous approval of Government."
4. Admittedly, the candidate for the post of Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander has to be of the age of 23 years as on 1st January next following last date fixed for receipt of application. In cases relating to sports quota, the Rule 11(3) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules is different.
5. Taking into consideration as it has come within the category of exceptional cases, in the case of Mahendra Kumar (supra), the Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under:-
"16. After perusing the above judgments and Rule 11(3) of the Rules of 1989 in the opinion of this Court there is no reasonable justification in the decision of the Government for refusing age relaxation vide communication dated 27.11.2012 because efficiency of work is necessary for every category of service under the State and no specific categorization can be made with regard to efficiency of work. Once the State Government has decided to grant age relaxation in 72 other service rules vide notification dated 23.09.2008 and granted age relaxation to other category of posts in various service rules, then, obviously such benefits is to be made available for the posts enumerated under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules 1989 because there is specific provision under sub-rule (3) of Rule 11 of the Rules of 1989 that upper age-limit may be relaxed by three years in exceptional cases by the appointing authority, after previous approval of Government. In the rules enacted under Article 309 of the Constitution of India it is specifically provided that relaxation (Downloaded on 05/10/2021 at 10:11:15 PM) (3 of 4) [CW-1960/2020] can be granted up to three years, then, it cannot be said that while granting benefit in the other service rules the same can be denied in the Rules of 1989. The State Government with open eyes granted relaxation up to three years in other service rules, therefore, the reasons given in the communication dated 27.11.2012 are violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and not sustainable in law."
6. The case of the petitioner was however not considered for age relaxation solely on the ground that he was at that time a player who had participated in the State Championship and West zone university tournaments. However, he has represented India in FIBA Asia Cup 2021 and has also represented All India National Level Championships, Asia Basketball Championship.
7. Thus, this Court is satisfied that he is an outstanding sports person being a sport of international repute and is therefore entitled to be considered for selection.
8. In case of Manini Kaushik Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No.12343/2020, this Court had an occasion to examine the rules with regard to the appointment of outstanding sports persons and considering the representation made by the petitioner therein, the respondent-State was directed to consider the petitioners for appointment on Class-I post.
9. Keeping in view thereto, the petitioner is held eligible not only for the post in question namely the post of Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 but would also be eligible for consideration of higher post if the said relevant Rules otherwise permit.
(Downloaded on 05/10/2021 at 10:11:15 PM)
(4 of 4) [CW-1960/2020]
10. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander and grant all consequential benefits. The consideration shall be done within a period of one month henceforth.
11. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J NITIN /59 (Downloaded on 05/10/2021 at 10:11:15 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)