Rajasthan High Court
Harish Kumar Sharma S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 February, 2022
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2713/2022
Harish Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Lakhan Lal Sharma, Aged About
40 Years, R/o C-116, Jawahar Nagar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Employee Selection Board, Through Its
President, State Agriculture Management Institute
Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur - 302018.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Munesh Bhardwaj
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
23/02/2022
The petitioner has challenged the vires of rule 16 of the
Rajasthan Educational (State and Subordinate) Services Rules,
2021 and corresponding condition 9 of the advertisement dated
01.02.2022 for the post of basic computer instructor/senior
computer instructor. The relevant rules reads as under:-
"16. Age- A candidate for direct recruitment in the
service:
(a) for the State Service Post must have attained the age
of 21 years and must not have attained the age of 40
years,
(b) for Subordinate Service post must have attained the
age of 18 years and must not have attained the age of 40
years,
(2 of 4) [CW-2713/2022]
On the 1st day of January, next following the last date
fixed for receipt of application:
Provided that:-
(i)The upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed
by:-
(a) 5 years in the case of male candidate belonging to the
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and
More Backward Classes.
(b) 5 years in the case of woman candidates belonging to
General category and Economically Weaker Sections;
(c) 10 years in the case of woman candidates belonging to
the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes
and More Backward Classes:
(ii) The upper age limit mentioned above shall not apply in
the case of an ex-prisoner basis on any post before his/her
conviction and was eligible for appointment under these
rules;
(iii) The upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed
by a period equal to the term of imprisonment served in
the case of other ex-prisoners who was not overage before
his conviction and was eligible for appointment under these
rules:
(iv) The upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed
by a period equal to the service rendered in the N.C.C. in
the case of Cadet Instructors, if the resultant age does not
exceed the prescribed maximum age limit by more than
three years, they shall be deemed to be within the
prescribed age limit;
(v) the upper age limit for person serving in connection with
the affairs of the State, Panchayat Samities and Zila
Parishads and in the State Public Sector
Undertaking/Corporations in substantive capacity shall be
40 years;
(vi) the released Emergency Commissioned Officers and
Short Service Commissioned Officers after release from the
Army shall be deemed to be within the age limit even
though they have crossed the age limit when they appear
before the Commission, Board or Appointing Authority, as
the case may be, had they been eligible as such at the time
of their joining the Commission in the Army;
(vii) there shall be no upper age limit in the case of at the
widows and divorced women;
(3 of 4) [CW-2713/2022]
Explanation: In the case of a widow, she will have to
furnish a certificate of death of her husband from the
Competent Authority and in the case of a divorce, she will
have to furnish the proof of divorce.
(viii) the persons appointed temporarily to a post in the
service shall be deemed to be within the age limit if they
were within the age limit when they were initially appointed
even though they have crossed the age limit when they
appear finally before the Commission/Board/Appointing
Authority and shall be allowed upto two chances had they
been eligible as such, at the time of their initial
appointment; and
(ix) 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 3 years."
The grievance of the petitioner is that this rule prescribes the
age limit of minimum 18 years and maximum 40 years for a
candidate and the date on which these conditions must be
specified is 1st day of January next following the last date fixed for
receipt of application. According to the petitioner, he was within
the upper age of 40 years on the date of advertisement as also on
the last date prescribed in the said advertisement for receiving the
application. However by 01.01.2023 he would have crossed the
age of 40 years and thus as per the said rule he would be overage
for applying the post in question. In this context the petitioner
has challenged the rule which prescribes the cut off date of 1 st
January next following the last date fixed in the advertisement for
receiving the application.
Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner we find that
the rule has provided a particular date as on which the candidate
has to comply with the minimum and maximum age requirements.
It is well settled through series of judgments of Supreme Court
(4 of 4) [CW-2713/2022]
that in absence of a prescription in the advertisement or in the
recruitment rules, the date for achieving qualifications for
recruitment to a post would be the last date for accepting
applications. However when statutory rules prescribes otherwise,
the same would prevail. In the present case, the statutory rules
peg back the date for reckoning the satisfaction of age criteria as
the 1st day of the year following the last date fixed for receiving
the application. This may work to the advantage of some and to
the disadvantage of the rest. However by that itself the rule
cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. In absence of any
legal defect the rule cannot be set aside as ultra vires simply
because it works to the disadvantage of the petitioner.
In the result, the petition is dismissed.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
N.Gandhi/22
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
