Rajasthan High Court
Surjan Lal Dhawan S/O Prabhu Dayal ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 1 October, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
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:-
(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
(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.
(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
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
