Mohammad Kamil vs R P S C Ajmer And Anr (2024:Rj-Jp:40683)
2024 Latest Caselaw 5944 Raj/2

Rajasthan High Court

Mohammad Kamil vs R P S C Ajmer And Anr (2024:Rj-Jp:40683) on 24 September, 2024

Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

[2024:RJ-JP:40683]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10744/2017
Mohammad Kamil S/o Chand Mohd., aged about 47 years, R/o
2A, Vikas Vihar Colony, Near Roadways Depot, District Tonk,
Rajasthan.
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.       The Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its
         Secretary, Ajmer
2.       The Director, Treasury And Account, Vitta Bhawan, A-
         Block, Janpath, Jaipur.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini with Mr. Aamir Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order 24/09/2024

This writ petition is filed seeking a direction to the

respondents to give the petitioner appointment to the post of

Junior Accountant/Tehsil Revenue Accountant(TRA) extending him

age relaxation.

The relevant facts in brief are that pursuant to the

advertisement dated 16.04.2015 issued by the Raajsthan Public

Service Commission, Ajmer (for brevity "the RPSC"), the petitioner

applied as a departmental candidate for appointment to the

aforesaid post. However, his candidature for appointment was not

considered being overage as per the terms of the advertisement.

Assailing the action of the respondents, learned counsel for

the petitioner submits that Clause 11 of the advertisement

provides relaxation of five years in upper age limit by the State

Government after consultation by the RPSC in exceptional matters

and he being a departmental candidate, should have been

[2024:RJ-JP:40683] (2 of 2) [CW-10744/2017]

extended this relaxation treating his case to be an exceptional

case. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed and the

respondents be directed to consider his case for appointment

extending him age relaxation.

Per contra, learned counsel for the RPSC opposed the prayer.

Heard. Considered.

Indisputably, the petitioner has crossed the upper age limit

on the relevant date, i.e., 01.01.2014 despite availing age

relaxation not only as a departmental candidate; but also, further

relaxation of one year in view of notification dated 23.09.2008

issued by the State Government for not having issued the

advertisement for a period of one year. Claim of the petitioner for

further relaxation of five years as per Clause 11 does not merit

acceptance as it can be granted by the State Government after

consultation by the RPSC only in exceptional matters. Learned

counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any exceptional

circumstance existing in the instant case entitling him for exercise

of discretion by the State Government except that he is a

departmental candidate for which he has already been extended

relaxation in terms of Clause 3 of the advertisement. An applicant

being a departmental candidate cannot be in itself an exceptional

circumstance as envisaged under Clause 11 which may have

applicability in such cases wherein, despite best efforts, a suitable

eligible candidate is not available for appointment.

In view thereof, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition

and it is dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also

stands disposed of.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Manish/103

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)