Kailash Chand Gurjar, Son Of Shri ... vs Rajasthan Employees Selection ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 7597 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

               D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 606/2020

Kailash Chand Gurjar, Son Of Shri Jagdish Lal Gurjar, Aged About
50 Years, (Mc Non-Creamy Category), Resident Of Village
Baneriya     Colony,      Thanwala,         Post        Nasirda,    District   Tonk,
Rajasthan.
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                      Versus
1.     Rajasthan       Employees           Selection       Board,    Through     Its
       Convener, Durga Pura, Jaipur.
2.     The    Director,       Department           Of     Education,     Rajasthan,
       Bikaner.
                                                                   ----Respondents

For Appellant(s)            :     Mr. Mahendra Shah
For Respondent(s)           :     Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS

Order

14/12/2021

This appeal is filed by the original petitioner to challenge the

judgment of learned Single judge dated 10.07.2020. The brief

facts are that the petitioner had applied for the post of Physical

Training Instructor Grade III for which the advertisement was

issued on 04.05.2018. The petitioner was not considered eligible

since he had crossed the maximum upper age limit prescribed as

per the rules and extended by the Government. The petitioner

therefore approached the High Court and writ petition was

dismissed. Hence this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant-original petitioner drew our

attention to Rule 38 of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate

(2 of 2) [SAW-606/2020]

Service Rules, 1971 which gives power to the State Government

to relax any part of the rules if case of undue hardship is made

out. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since from

the year 2015 no recruitment year-wise was conducted the

Government should have extended the upper age limit suitably. In

the present case the Government has issued general order

extending the upper age limit by three years only.

It emerges undisputably that even with the aid of extension

of three years the petitioner does not come within the age limit.

Rule 38 of the said rules grants enabling power to the

Government. The Government having exercised discretion and

given general relaxation of three years, no directions can be given

to extend the age limit further. Unfortunately the petitioner who

does not fall within the age limit even with the aid of extension

would be rendered ineligible. No case is made out.

The appeal is dismissed.

                                   (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J                                                (AKIL KURESHI),CJ

                                   Kamlesh Kumar/N.Gandhi/17









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)