Mahesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 5744 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 202/2022

Mahesh Kumar, Vpo Bada Kheda, Tehsil Indragarh, Bundi.

----Appellant Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Directorate Ayurved Department, Rajasthan, Ajmer.

2. The Registrar, Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved University, Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG.

Mr. Sunniel Purohit.

HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Order

20/04/2022

Heard.

Denial of relief of age relaxation in the matter of recruitment

of persons with disabilities under the questioned advertisement

has led the appellant to file this appeal.

The pointed submission of learned counsel for the appellant

is that the spirit of the new Act, the Right of Persons with

Disabilities Act, 2016, as contained in Section 34 thereof, required

the State to make provision for relaxation in age to persons with

disabilities, but when the Rules were initially framed in 2016, no

such relaxation was provided though subsequently, such

relaxation was provided by an amendment carved out in the

Rules, vide notification dated 14.10.2021. Therefore, it is

(2 of 3) [SAW-202/2022]

contended that the same ought to be applied retrospectively even

though the process of selection had already commenced by

issuance of advertisement.

This contention has been negatived by learned Single Judge

for weighty reasons that the amendment in the Rules providing for

relaxation came into force and effect subsequent to the issuance

of advertisement and therefore, the process of selection could not

be altered in its material terms including any provision for

relaxation to persons with disabilities on the basis of subsequent

amendment in the Rule.

The view, which has been taken by the learned Single Judge,

is strictly in accordance with law as it is well-settled that once the

process of selection commences any amendment or changes

brought about in the Rules, the changed rule of game will have no

application in respect of the process of recruitment initiated prior

to such change.

Reliance on the Supreme Court decision in the case of State

of Kerala & Ors Vs. Leesamma Josheph [(2021) 9 SCC 208]

is misplaced because that related to claim of reservation and

taking into consideration the mandate of the Act of 2016, the

Supreme Court directed that in such cases even if no specific

provision for reservation is made under the Rules of the State, in

view of mandate under the Act of 1995, reservation was required

to be provided. Therefore, the said judgment does not apply to

the present case.

While we do not find any ground to grant relief to the

appellant in the present case, we observe that while under the

Disability Act of 1995, there was no provision for relaxation in age,

the State came out with the Rules of 2011 providing for age

(3 of 3) [SAW-202/2022]

relaxation but when new Act was enacted known as the Rights of

Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 which incorporated enabling

provision under Section 34 that the State may provide for age

relaxation, initially when the rules were framed in the year 2018,

relaxation was not there. It appears that the State realized its

mistake and in consonance with the spirit of the enactment,

amendment has now been made providing for age relaxation, but

this will not affect earlier process of selection nor can confer any

right on the disabled persons who applied under the

advertisement issued prior to the amendment.

The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACJ

24-a.asopa/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)