Raghuvar Singh S/O Shri Munni Ram ... vs The State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2517 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4611/2022

Raghuvar Singh S/o Shri Munni Ram Gurjar, Aged About 35
Years, Resident Of Ward No. 14, Mohalla Gurjarwada, Near Jain
Mandir, Tijara District Alwar.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief
       Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
       Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.     Rajasthan    Public      Service        Commission,        Through     Its
       Secretary, Ajmer.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig for RPSC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

24/03/2022

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in

this writ petition has already been considered and decided by a

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Mukesh

Choudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. & other connected

matters, where in on 15.03.2021, it has been held as under:-

"1. All these writ petitions raise common question and therefore, are being decided by this common order.

2. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2555/2021 which is taken into consideration as a lead case for examining the controversy wherein prayer has been made to direct the respondents to grant three years age relaxation instead of two years as granted under the advertisement dated 03.02.2021.

(2 of 6) [CW-4611/2022]

3. Similar prayers though in different forms have been made in the other writ petitions.

4. In a nutshell, the petitioners by way of this writ petition have prayed to direct the RPSC to accept their application forms for the post of Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander under the (D.B.

SAW/303/2021 and 4 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) advertisement dated 03.02.2021 by giving age relaxation in upper age limit in view of notification dated 23.09.2008 as well as notification dated 17.05.2018.

5. The grievance of the petitioners is that the last advertisement for filling up the post of Sub-Inspector was issued on 05.10.2016 wherein the age was to be assessed of the candidate as on 01.01.2017. A spate of litigation arose in relation to the said advertisement as age relaxation was not granted therein. The writ petition was preferred before the Division Bench challenging the notification dated 23.09.2008 which provided upto three years age relaxation in cases where the recruitment was not held and the candidates had become ineligible on account of overage on the ground that the notification was applicable to other services of the State but the same was not applicable to the Police Sub-ordinate Service Rules, 1989.

6. The Division Bench in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15619/2016 : Shahjad Khan versus State & Ors. along with another connected writ petition decided on 14.12.2017 after taking note of the notification dated 23.09.2008 and the power contained under Rule 11(a) Proviso (3) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as, "the Rules of 1989"), found that the Home Department itself has granted age relaxation of three years vide its order dated 22.06.2017 and as the recommendations were already made by the appointing authority, disposed of the case with the observations as under:- "Since the recommendation has been made by the appointing authority to the State Government, it is always expected from the State Govt., which is the (D.B. SAW/303/2021 and 4 more have been

(3 of 6) [CW-4611/2022]

filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) rule making authority, to revisit and take a decision keeping in view the recommendations made in the order dt. 22.06.2017 in the right earnest which may serve the fate of the prospective candidate who intends to participate for appointment under the Rules of 1989."

7. The RPSC therefore, issued a corrigendum on 03.04.2018 granting three years age relaxation in terms of the State Government exercising its power under Rule 11(a) Proviso (3). In view of the corrigendum, new applications were also invited and the cut-off-date was fixed as 01.01.2019 for new applicants, the selection process was thereafter continued.

8. The present writ petitions assail the advertisement dated 03.02.2021 as in the present advertisement the State Government has granted age relaxation only for two years. Learned counsel submits that in the new advertisement, the cut-off-date for age assessment is fixed as 01.01.2022. Learned counsel submits that since three years have lapsed between the earlier advertisement wherein cut-off-date was 01.01.2019, three years age relaxation ought to have been granted by the State authorities while exercising powers under Rule 11(a) Proviso (3).

9. It is submitted that in terms of the observation made by the Division Bench (supra) the State Authorities amended Rule 11(a) Proviso (3) vide notification dated 17.05.2018 and in the Rule 11(a) Proviso (3), the existing provision of "three years" was substituted by "four years".

10. It is submitted that once the power for relaxation in age has been increased from three to four years, the State Authorities ought to have exercised the power accordingly and merely granting two years age relaxation impinges on the rights of those candidates who would have been able to participate in the (D.B. SAW/303/2021 and 4 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) selection process if the age relaxation had been granted for three years. Learned counsel submits that observations of the Division Bench are essentially to grant in parity to the

(4 of 6) [CW-4611/2022]

petitioners similar benefit given to other candidates who apply for the various other services in the State and to whom the notification dated 23.09.2008 applies.

11. Learned counsel submits that the power available under Rule 11(a) Proviso (3) has not been exercised appropriately and directions can be issued by this Court to exercise the power and relax age criteria accordingly.

12. Learned counsel further submits that even the State authorities had intended to grant age relaxation by three years and recommendations were made by the recruiting authority to the State Government to grant age relaxation of three years as the advertisement was being issued after three years and therefore, directions be issued to the State to grant three years relaxation.

13. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State as well as for the RPSC submitted that the power has been exercised under Rule 11(a) Proviso (3), this Court would not substitute its opinion to the opinion of the State Government while exercising the power, the maximum age of 25 years has been increased to 27 years on account of the power exercised by the State and it is best to be left for the State to take decisions in terms of Rule 11(a) Proviso (3).

14. I have considered the submissions.

15. Noticing the aforesaid facts, this Court finds that while in the case of Shahjad Khan (supra), this Court made observations, however the Division Bench nowhere held that the relaxation as (D.B. SAW/303/2021 and 4 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) provided in other services under the notification dated 23.09.2008 has to be necessarily allowed in police services. Rules which are framed under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India relating to recruitment and other service conditions of Government employees are specific to the concerned requirement of department. The State has consciously left the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules from the schedule while issuing notification dated 23.09.2008. However, a special power has been given to the State Government to

(5 of 6) [CW-4611/2022]

relax the age and experience as and when required.

16. Accordingly, the power under Rule 11(a) Proviso (3) of the Rules of 1989 lays down as under:- "(3) however the upper age-limit mentioned above may be relaxed by three years in exceptional cases by appointing authority, after previous approval of Government."

17. The said power is exclusively within the administrative domain of the appointing authority with prior approval of the State Government and judicial review relating to the exercise of such power is not available with this Court as the discretion while exercising such a power is exclusively administrative one.

18. It is only in cases where the judicial process is of such a nature which creates arbitrariness or discrimination between similarly situated persons that this Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. On the anvil of the fundamental rights available to a citizen, such discriminatory order or arbitrary order may be set aside. However, a mandamus to the State Authorities to exercise discretionary power in a particular manner and to a particular extent is not available with this Court. In the present case, the appointing (D.B. SAW/303/2021 and 4 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) authority and in consultation with approval of the State has only granted two years age relaxation while exercising the power under Rule 11(a) proviso (3). The same cannot be said in any manner to be arbitrary.

19. Therefore, Keeping in view the scope as available with this Court, I do not find any ground to allow these writ petitions.

20. However, it is always open for the petitioners to approach the State Authorities for grant of age relaxation and if such discretion is exercised by the State, the same would apply to all the candidates including those who have not approached the Court.

21. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed.

22. A copy of this order be placed in each file.

23. All pending applications shall also stand disposed of. "

(6 of 6) [CW-4611/2022]

In that view of the matter, the present writ petition stands

dismissed in view of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in the matter of Mukesh Choudhary & Ors.

(supra).

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

Upendra Pratap Singh /107

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)