Shyam Lal Sarawata vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 1259 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17112/2021

Shyam Lal Sarawata S/o Shri Chhitar Mal, Aged About 47 Years, R/o 77, Balai Mohalla, Bhainslana, Tehsil Kishangarh Renwal, Jaipur, (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Principal Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.

3. The Director Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Bishnoi (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG (through VC)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

27/01/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against the order dated 04.10.2021 (Annex.6) passed by the

respondents, whereby, the candidature of the petitioner has been

rejected on account of the fact that the petitioner was found over-

aged in terms of the notification for recruitment dated

11.09.2017.

It is inter-alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner

that initially the notification for recruitment was issued on

06.07.2016, wherein, the cut-off date was indicated as

01.01.2017 for the purpose of minimum and maximum age.

(2 of 3) [CW-17112/2021]

Subsequently, on account of passing of a judgment by this

Court in the case of Sher Singh v. Dinesh Singh & Ors.: D.B. Civil

Special Appeal (Writ) No.1464/2016, decided on 27.04.2017, a

fresh notification dated 11.09.2017 was issued, wherein, the cut-

off date was modified from 01.01.2017 to 01.01.2018.

The name of the petitioner appeared in the list of

provisionally selected candidates (Annex.5), however, when the

petitioner appeared for document verification by order dated

04.10.2021 (Annex.6), by indicating the following, his candidature

was rejected:-

"f'k{kd HkrhZ] 2016 ¼la'kksf/kr½ vUrxZr xSj vuqlwfpr {ks= esa v/;kid ysoy&f}rh; gsrq tkjh foKfIr fnukad 11-09-2017 ds vuqlkj vuqlwfpr tkfr ds iq:"k vH;kfFkZ;ksa gsrq Åijh vk;q lhek vk/kkj frfFk 01-01-2018 dks 43 o"kZ ls de gksuh pkfg,A foKfIr ds izko/kkukuqlkj vuqlwfpr tkfr ds iq:"k ftudh tUefrfFk 02-01-1975 ;k blds ckn gS] vuqlwfpr tkfr oxZ ds inksa ij fu;qfDr gsrq ik= gSA vH;FkhZ ';keyky ljoVk dh tUefrfFk 05-07-1974 gksus ds dkj.k] Åijh vk;q lhek ikj gksus ds dkj.k f'k{kd HkrhZ] 2016 ¼la'kksf/kr½ ds rgr fu;qfDr ugha nh tk ldrh gSA"

Submissions have been made that once the advertisement

dated 11.09.2017 was only by way of modification of the earlier

advertisement dated 06.07.2016, the cut-off date would have to

be taken as that of the earlier notification dated 06.07.2016 and

the action of the respondents in finding the petitioner as over-

aged based on the notification dated 11.09.2017 is not justified.

A reply to the petition has been filed inter-alia relying on the

notification dated 11.09.2017 and the cut-off indicated therein

with the submissions that admittedly based on the cut-off date

01.01.2018, the petitioner is over-aged and as such, rejection of

petitioner's candidature is justified.

Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of

submissions has referred to a circular dated 03.10.2017 issued by

(3 of 3) [CW-17112/2021]

the Joint Secretary, Primary Education Department, Jaipur inter-

alia referring to the two notifications dated 06.07.2016 and

11.09.2017 and indicating the decision of the State that the age

limit shall be as per the previous notification dated 06.07.2016 i.e.

01.01.2017.

Learned AAG does not dispute the existence of the circular

dated 03.10.2017 with regard to the age limit i.e. 01.01.2017

only.

Admittedly, by taking the cut-off date as 01.01.2017, the

petitioner is eligible as per his date of birth.

In view of the above fact situation, wherein, the State itself

by its circular dated 03.10.2017 has maintained the cut-off date

as 01.01.2017, the rejection of petitioner's candidature by order

dated 04.10.2021 (Annex.6) on account of his being over aged,

based on the amended advertisement dated 11.09.2017, cannot

be sustained.

Consequently, the order dated 04.10.2021 (Annex.6) qua the

petitioner is quashed and set-aside. In case, the petitioner is

otherwise eligible, he be accorded appointment in terms of the

provisional selection dated 08.09.2021 (Annex.5) with all

consequential benefits, from the date, person lower in merit to the

petitioner was accorded appointment by the respondents.

Needful may be done by the respondents within a period of

four weeks. The petitioner would be entitled to monetary benefits

from the date, he joins duty pursuant to the order of appointment

to be issued by the respondents.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 9-pradeep/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)