[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The Secreatry, The Rajasthan ... vs Bheem Singh Udawat on 1 December, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:50564-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1114/2022
The Secreatry, The Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial
Service Selection Board, Premises Of State Agriculture
Management Institute, Durgapura, Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Bheem Singh Udawat S/o Roop Singh Udawat, House No.
176/25, Shiv Shakti Nagar, Nandari, Banar Road, Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Panchayati Raj And Rural Development,
Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Department Of Panchayati Raj And Rural
Development, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Priyanshu Gopa
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.L. Deora
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA
Judgment
1. Date of conclusion of arguments 18.09.2025
2. Date on which judgment was reserved 18.09.2025
3. Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is
pronounced: Full judgment
4. Date of pronouncement 01.12.2025
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. The present D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) has been preferred
claiming the following relief:
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that
their D.B. Special Appeal writ petition may kindly be allowed
and the impugned order dated 11.10.2022 passed by Hon'ble
Singh judge in S.B.C.W.P.No. 13347/2017 (Bheem Singh
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:36:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50564-DB] (2 of 13) [SAW-1114/2022]
Udawat V/s State of Rajasthan & Ors.) may kindly be set
aside.
Any other appropriate order or relief which their Hon'ble
court may deem just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of their case may kindly also be passed in
favour of the humble appellant."
2. The brief facts of the case, as emerging from the record, are
that the Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection
Board issued an advertisement dated 21.09.2016 for direct
recruitment to the post of Librarian Grade-III. The advertisement
prescribed the general upper-age limit of 35 years as on
01.01.2017, with a further relaxation of three years in terms of
the State Government notification dated 23.09.2008. In respect of
certain special categories, including Ex-Servicemen, separate
upper-age limits were notified under clause 8 of the
advertisement, wherein the maximum age prescribed for Ex-
Servicemen was 50 years.
2.1. The respondent-writ petitioner applied under the Ex-
Servicemen category and appeared in the written examination
held on 13.11.2016. Upon declaration of the result dated
28.06.2017, the respondent secured 124.1072 marks, which was
the exact cut-off prescribed for the Ex-Servicemen category, and
his roll number appeared in the list of provisionally selected
candidates.
2.2. The respondent was thereafter called for document
verification on 11.07.2017. During the verification process, the
Board found the respondent to be 51 years and 6 months of age
as on 01.01.2017, and therefore beyond the upper-age limit of 50
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:36:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50564-DB] (3 of 13) [SAW-1114/2022]
years prescribed for Ex-Servicemen under clause 8(8) of the
advertisement. On such ground, his candidature was not included
in the final select list.
2.3. Aggrieved thereof, the respondent-writ petitioner preferred
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13347/2017 challenging the denial of
appointment, inter alia contending that the relaxation of three
years--granted to all applicants on account of no recruitment
being held in the preceding three years--was also available to Ex-
Servicemen, thereby extending their upper-age limit from 50 to
53 years.
2.4. The learned Single Judge, upon consideration of the
advertisement and the appended clarification, held that the
relaxation of three years was applicable to all candidates
irrespective of category, and consequently held the respondent-
writ petitioner to be within the permissible age limit. The writ
petition was accordingly allowed and a direction was issued to
accord appointment, subject to eligibility, with notional benefits.
3. Mr. Priyansh Gopa, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant-Board submitted that the learned Single Judge has
failed to correctly appreciate clause 8 of the advertisement dated
21.09.2016, particularly the scheme of age relaxation. It was
submitted that the advertisement clearly prescribed a general
upper-age limit of 35 years as on 01.01.2017, extendable to 38
years only by virtue of the notification dated 23.09.2008;
however, for certain special categories, including Ex-Servicemen, a
distinct and independent upper-age limit was separately provided.
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:36:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50564-DB] (4 of 13) [SAW-1114/2022]
3.1. It was further submitted that clause 8(8) of the
advertisement explicitly fixes the upper-age limit for Ex-
Servicemen at 50 years, subject only to an additional two-year
relaxation for recipients of war/Valour distinctions, and that such
upper-age limit constitutes a complete code for the said category.
The appellant asserts that the general relaxation of three years on
account of the recruitment not being conducted in the preceding
three years cannot be superimposed upon a special-category age
limit.
3.2. Learned counsel submitted that the notes appended to clause
8 clarify that age relaxations under the advertisement are non-
cumulative, and that a candidate cannot claim more than one
relaxation simultaneously. Therefore, an Ex-Serviceman who
already enjoys the benefit of an enhanced upper-age limit of 50
years cannot claim any additional relaxation under the general
three-year extension.
3.3. It was further contended that the respondent-writ petitioner
admittedly possessed the age of 51 years and 6 months as on
01.01.2017, and was therefore beyond the prescribed upper-age
limit of 50 years for the Ex-Servicemen category. Once the age
bar was crossed, the appellant was legally precluded from
including him in the final select list, notwithstanding his marks in
the written examination.
3.4. Learned counsel submitted that the learned Single Judge has
misread the advertisement by treating the general three-year
relaxation as applicable across categories, contrary to the explicit
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:36:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50564-DB] (5 of 13) [SAW-1114/2022]
stipulation that special-category age relaxations operate
independently and cannot be combined. It was therefore urged
that the impugned order suffers from manifest error and has
resulted in granting eligibility to a candidate who was otherwise
age-barred.
3.5. With these submissions, learned counsel for the appellant
prays that the impugned judgment dated 11.10.2022 be set aside.
4. Per Contra, Mr. M.L. Deora, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondent-writ petitioner submitted that the
learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the scheme of age
relaxation under the advertisement dated 21.09.2016, and the
present appeal proceeds on a misconstruction of clause 8. It was
submitted that the advertisement contemplates three independent
components under the head of "Age":
(i) the minimum and maximum age prescribed for all candidates;
(ii) special-category relaxations (including Ex-Servicemen); and
(iii) a general relaxation of three years granted to all candidates
on account of the recruitment not having taken place during the
preceding three years.
4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent falls
under the Ex-Servicemen category and was therefore entitled to
the special upper-age limit of 50 years prescribed for Ex-
Servicemen. In addition, the notification dated 23.09.2008,
expressly incorporated in clause 8, mandates that where no
recruitment has been held in the last three years, all applicants,
regardless of category, shall be entitled to an additional three
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:36:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50564-DB] (6 of 13) [SAW-1114/2022]
years' relaxation. It was urged that this general relaxation is not
tied to any particular reserved category, but is based on an
objective circumstance applicable uniformly across the
recruitment.
4.2. It was next submitted that neither the advertisement nor the
Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-Servicemen) Rules,
1988 contain any expression such as "non-cumulative", "mutually
exclusive", or "one relaxation only", which could disentitle an Ex-
Serviceman from availing both (i) the special-category age limit,
and (ii) the general three-year relaxation. The appellant's plea of
non-cumulation was therefore stated to be unfounded and
contrary to the plain text.
4.3. With respect to the reliance placed upon Alsa Ram v.
Rajasthan Public Service Commission, learned counsel submitted
that the said judgment is entirely inapplicable. The controversy in
Alsa Ram concerned two special-category relaxations being
claimed cumulatively--namely, relaxation as an in-service
candidate and relaxation for belonging to the Scheduled Caste
category. Both were category-based relaxations. The Court held
that dual special-category relaxations cannot be combined.
4.4. In distinction, learned counsel submitted that the present
case involves the respondent claiming:
(i) the special-category upper-age limit of 50 years for Ex-
Servicemen; and
(ii) a general relaxation of three years applicable to all candidates
due to non-conduct of the examination for three years.
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:36:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50564-DB] (7 of 13) [SAW-1114/2022]
It was urged that these two relaxations operate in separate
spheres, and therefore, Alsa Ram has no bearing on the present
matter.
4.5. Learned counsel also submitted that the learned Single Judge
adopted the only harmonious and reasonable interpretation of
clause 8, namely, that the age limit for Ex-Servicemen would be
50 + 3 = 53 years, in view of the general relaxation available to
all applicants. The respondent, being 51 years and 6 months as on
01.01.2017, thus squarely fell within the prescribed age limit.
4.6. It was additionally submitted that the respondent secured the
exact cut-off marks of 124.1072 for the Ex-Servicemen category,
was the only candidate meeting the cut-off, was provisionally
selected, and successfully underwent document verification. The
denial of appointment on an erroneous age interpretation was
therefore arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution.
4.7. With these submissions, learned counsel for the respondent-
writ petitioner prayed that the appeal be dismissed and the
judgment dated 11.10.2022 be upheld.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material available on record.
6. This Court notes that the central issue which arises for
determination is whether, under the advertisement dated
21.09.2016, an Ex-Serviceman candidate could lawfully claim (i)
the special upper-age limit of 50 years prescribed for Ex-
Servicemen, and simultaneously (ii) the general three-year
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:36:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50564-DB] (8 of 13) [SAW-1114/2022]
relaxation granted on account of non-holding of recruitment
during the preceding years, so as to contend that the effective
upper-age limit for Ex-Servicemen stood extended to 53 years.
7. This Court observes that the advertisement in question
contained a three-tier structure under the head "Age": first, the
minimum and maximum age ordinarily applicable; second, special
age prescriptions and relaxations for specified categories,
including Ex-Servicemen governed by the Rajasthan Civil Services
(Absorption of Ex-Servicemen) Rules, 1988; and third, a general
three-year relaxation traceable to the notification dated
23.09.2008, on account of the examination not being held in the
preceding three years. The special provision for Ex-Servicemen, in
terms of clause 8(8), fixed the upper-age ceiling at 50 years, with
the further rider under the Ex-Servicemen Rules that, even after
relaxation, the permissible age would not exceed 50 years.
7.1. This Court further observes that the advertisement as well as
the governing Ex-Servicemen Rules were structured on a non-
cumulative paradigm, i.e., an Ex-Serviceman was granted a
higher, self-contained upper-age limit of 50 years as a complete
code for that category. The general three-year relaxation under
the DOP notification of 23.09.2008 was intended to operate vis-à-
vis the ordinary upper-age limit for general candidates, and not to
enlarge a separately codified special-category ceiling.
7.2. This Court finds that in the recent judgment of this Court in
State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Dr. Mohd. Sajid & Ors., (D.B.
Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1128/2024 (lead case) decided on
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:36:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50564-DB] (9 of 13) [SAW-1114/2022]
09.09.2025, along with connected appeals (including D.B.
Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1123/2024 and others), wherein the
question of cumulative versus non-cumulative age relaxation
under the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathy and
Naturopathy Service Rules, 1973, and the DOP Notification
No.F.7(6) DOP/A-II/2008 Dated 23-09-08, was exhaustively
examined.
7.3. In the said decision, this Court, while analysing Rule 9 of
Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy
Service Rules, 1973, and the very same DOP notification dated
23.09.2008, held that: (i) each relaxation carved out for a
particular class (OBC, contract employee, ex-serviceman,
etc.) has its own policy rationale; (ii) cumulative
aggregation of such relaxations is not the norm but an
exception; (iii) unless the Rules themselves expressly
provide for cumulative benefit, the Court cannot read such
entitlement into the scheme; and (iv) where the Rules are
silent but the advertisement clearly stipulates that
relaxations are non-cumulative, the advertisement governs
and must be given effect to. This Court had succinctly
summarized the legal position to the effect that if the Rule
is speaking, the Rule prevails; if silent, the advertisement
prevails; and in either situation, cumulative relaxation
cannot be inferred without an express mandate.
7.4. This Court also notes that in Alsa Ram Meghwal v. RPSC
& Anr., (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 1141/2008
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:36:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50564-DB] (10 of 13) [SAW-1114/2022]
decided on 29.04.2016), a Hon'ble Division Bench negatived a
claim for cumulative relaxation where an in-service candidate
simultaneously sought relaxation as a reserved-category
candidate. The Court treated the special in-service upper-age
prescription as a complete code for that class and upheld a
stipulation that only one relaxation could be availed. The same
principle was later followed by the learned Single Judge in
Dhuleshwar Ghogra v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 16192/2022, where the Court gave a concrete
example of a Scheduled Caste woman working on contract
and demonstrated how cumulative aggregation of multiple
relaxations would virtually nullify the age-norm itself. For ready
reference, the relevant portion of the judgment in Dhuleshwar
Ghogra (supra) is reproduced as under:
"For example, if a Scheduled Caste woman candidate is
working with the respondent-Department on contractual
basis, then as per the contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioners, she is required to be given relaxation
in upper age limit of 18 years (10 yrs. for SC Category, 5
yrs. for working on contractual basis & 3 yrs. for not
conducting recruitment) i.e. upto the age of 53 years (35
yrs. + 10 yrs. + 5 yrs. + 3 yrs.). The intention of the
legislature is not to be taken in such a fashion that it
breaches the basic and fundamental principle of
consideration of the age as provided in the rule itself
which clearly prescribes the age of a candidate to be
considered between 18-35 years only and proviso
provides for certain relaxations in certain conditions."
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:36:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50564-DB] (11 of 13) [SAW-1114/2022]
7.5. This Court is further fortified by the exposition of law by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rachna v. Union of India, (2021) 5
SCC 638, wherein it has been held that matters of reservation
and relaxation are essentially policy choices within the domain of
the executive and rule-making authority, and that courts cannot
rewrite or expand those policies, save where they are patently
arbitrary or violative of constitutional guarantees. Likewise, in
Malik Mazhar Sultan v. U.P. Public Service Commission,
(2006) 9 SCC 507, and Ashish Kumar v. State of U.P.,
(2018) 3 SCC 55, the Hon'ble Apex Court reiterated that
statutory recruitment rules framed under Article 309 of the
Constitution prevail over contrary conditions in advertisements,
and that the "rules of the game" cannot be altered mid-way.
7.6. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts at hand, this
Court observes that the scheme of the Rajasthan Civil Services
(Absorption of Ex-Servicemen) Rules, 1988, read with clause 8(8)
of the advertisement, reveals a deliberate legislative and
policy design: Ex-Servicemen are granted a higher, but capped,
upper-age limit of 50 years. The proviso under the Ex-Servicemen
Rules itself clarifies that even after relaxation, if the age crosses
50 years, the upper-age limit of 50 years alone shall apply. To
then engraft an additional three-year relaxation on the strength of
the general DOP notification dated 23.09.2008 would be to
supplant rather than interpret the scheme, and would directly
defeat the 50-year cap consciously enacted for that class.
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:36:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50564-DB] (12 of 13) [SAW-1114/2022]
7.7. This Court, therefore, finds that the general three-year
relaxation contemplated on account of non-holding of recruitment
in the preceding years primarily operates upon the ordinary upper-
age limit prescribed. It does not, in the absence of express words,
enlarge the separately codified upper-age limit for Ex-Servicemen.
To hold otherwise would permit cumulative aggregation of distinct
relaxations, a course specifically declined in Alsa Ram Meghwal
(supra) and doctrinally rejected in Dhuleshwar Ghogra (supra) and
the recent Division Bench decision in Dr. Mohd. Sajid (supra).
7.8. This Court further observes that the learned Single Judge, in
the impugned order dated 11.10.2022, proceeded on the premise
that the clarification appended to clause 8 "naturally" entitled the
Ex-Servicemen category also to add the three-year relaxation to
the 50-year ceiling and thus arrive at a composite limit of 53
years. In light of the legal position now crystallised by this COurt
in the Dr. Mohd. Sajid batch(supra), and the earlier Hon'ble
Division Bench ruling in Alsa Ram Meghwal (supra), such an
interpretation cannot be sustained. The Ex-Servicemen ceiling of
50 years is a special and self-contained prescription, and the
three-year relaxation cannot be superimposed upon it.
7.9. On the admitted facts, the respondent-writ petitioner was 51
years and 6 months of age as on 01.01.2017, and therefore had
clearly crossed the maximum upper-age limit of 50 years
applicable to Ex-Servicemen. The mere fact that he secured marks
equal to the cut-off and was provisionally called for document
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:36:25 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50564-DB] (13 of 13) [SAW-1114/2022]
verification does not confer a right to appointment contrary to the
eligibility criteria.
7.10. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the
learned Single Judge erred in reading the general three-year
relaxation into the Ex-Servicemen ceiling and thereby treating the
respondent-writ petitioner as eligible up to 53 years. The
impugned judgment, to that extent, suffers from an error of law
and cannot be allowed to stand.
7.11.For the foregoing reasons, the present D.B. Special Appeal
(Writ) is allowed. The judgment dated 11.10.2022 passed by
the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13347/2017
(Bheem Singh Udawat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) is quashed
and set aside.
7.12. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(BIPIN GUPTA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH
BHATI),J
50-SKant/-
(Uploaded on 03/12/2025 at 03:36:25 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
