Rajasthan High Court
Prashant Akar Son Of Shri Ramavtar ... vs Rajasthan High Court on 29 January, 2021
Bench: Sabina, Manoj Kumar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3574/2020
Prashant Akar Son Of Shri Ramavtar Akar, Aged About 41 Years,
Resident Of D-36, Saket Colony, Jaipur - 302004.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar
General
2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Choudhary, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Sharma Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Vishnu Kant Sharma, Advocate
through video conferencing
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR VYAS
Judgment / Order
29/01/2021
Petitioner has filed the petition alleging that he was entitled
for relaxation of age by three years for the post of Stenographer
Grade-III.
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
(2 of 4) [CW-3574/2020]
amendment of Rule 9 of Rajasthan District Courts Ministerial
Establishment Rules, 1986.
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.
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.
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.
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 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
(3 of 4) [CW-3574/2020]
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."
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."
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. 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.
(4 of 4) [CW-3574/2020]
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.
Hence, we are of the considered opinion that present writ
petition is liable to be dismissed.
No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
(MANOJ KUMAR VYAS),J (SABINA),J
Mohita /67
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
