Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The State Of Rajasthan vs Mohammad Sajid on 9 September, 2025
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2025:RJ-JD:38791-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1123/2024
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Ayurved And Bhartiya Chikitsa,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Joint Secretary,
Department Of Unani And Indian Medical, Government Of
Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Dr Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved
University, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Dr. Ali Taqi S/o Irtiza Hussain, Aged About 56 Years,
Opposite Gayo Ki Fatak, Udaimandir, Jodhpur
2. Abdul Rauf S/o Abdul Aziz, Aged About 54 Years, Resident
Of Near Neel Gharo Ki Mazid, Malpura, Tonk.
3. Saleem Khan S/o Subratee Khan, Aged About 53 Years,
Resident Of Opposite Gayon Ki Fatak, Udaimandir,
Jodhpur.
4. Mohammad Irfan S/o Mahammed Yamin, Aged About 56
Years, Resident Of Village And Post Navrangpura, Virat
Nagar, District Jaipur.
5. Mohammad Shah Alam S/o Masood Akhatar, Aged About
53 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Bhanpur Kallan,
Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur.
6. Gopal Singh Tanwar S/o Narayan Singh Tanwar, Aged
About 56 Years, Resident Of House No. 30, Ram Gali No.
8, Near New Raja Park, Village And Post Rattewala,
District Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1109/2024
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Ayurved, Yoga And Naturopathy, Unani,
Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayush) Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Deputy Joint Secretary, Department Of Ayurved, Yoga
And Naturopathy, Unani. Siddha And Homeopathy
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:16:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/09/2025 at 09:42:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38791-DB] (2 of 23) [SAW-1123/2024]
(Ayush), Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Dr.sarvapalli Radhakrishan Ayurved University, Nagaur
Road, Karwar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
4. Dr.sarvapalli Radhakrishan Ayurved University, Nagaur
Road, Karwar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5. Registrar, Dr. Sarvapalliradhakrishanayurve University,
Nagaur Road, Karwar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
Dr. Mohd Yunus S/o Late Sharee Abdul Wase, Aged About 57
Years, Resident Of Gajadhar Molabaxji Ki Pole, Merti Silawaton
Ka Bas, Inside Sojati Gate, Jodhpur.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1128/2024
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Ayurved, Yoga And Naturopathy, Unani,
Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayush) Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Deputy Joint Secretary, Department Of Ayurved, Yoga
And Naturopathy, Unani. Siddha And Homeopathy
(Ayush), Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Registrar, Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishan Ayurved University,
Nagaur Road, Karwar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
Mohammad Sajid S/o Mohammad Ali, Aged About 53 Years, R/o
1712, Karnal Sahab Ki Haveli, Uday Mandir, Jodhpur Cachery,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1105/2024
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Ayurved, Yoga And Naturopathy, Unani,
Siddha And Homeopathy (Ayush) Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur,
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:16:28 PM)
(Downloaded on 10/09/2025 at 09:42:44 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38791-DB] (3 of 23) [SAW-1123/2024]
Rajasthan.
2. Deputy Joint Secretary, Department Of Ayurved, Yoga
And Naturopathy, Unani. Siddha And Homeopathy
(Ayush), Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Registrar, Dr. Sarvapalliradhakrishan Ayurve University,
Nagaur Road, Karwar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Dr. Ahatsham Ali S/o Munqad Husain, Aged About 57
Years, C/o Dr.himanshu, Air Force Area, Jodhpur.
2. Sayed Yasin Ashraf S/o Sayad Sarfraz Hussain, Aged
About 55 Years, 1, Baba Ramdev Colony Behind Bus
Stand, Lavera Baori, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Piyush Bhandari for Mr. Praveen
Khandelwal, AAG
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Kumar Ojha
Mr. Mahendra Thanvi
Mr. Suniel Purohit
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA
Judgment
Reportable
Reserved on 28/08/2025 / 04/09/2025
Pronounced on 09/09/2025
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
1. At the outset, it is clarified that the present batch of special
appeals arise from a similar set of facts and common issues
emanating from the impugned order dated 21.05.2024 passed by
the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, it would be appropriate and
in the interest of judicial propriety to adjudicate them analogously.
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:16:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38791-DB] (4 of 23) [SAW-1123/2024]
2. For the sake of convenience, D.B. Civil Special Appeal
(Writ) No. 1128/2024 is treated as the lead case in the present
adjudication. The decision rendered therein shall govern and apply
mutatis mutandis also to the instant D.B. Civil Special Appeal
(Writ) No. 1123/2024, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.
1109/2024 and D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1105/2024.
3. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1128/2024 has
been preferred by the appellants under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan
High Court Rules, 1951, read with Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, seeking the following reliefs:
"It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
appeal may kindly be allowed, the impugned order of
learned Single Judge dated 21.05.2024 passed in S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 13771/2023 (Dr. Mohd. Sajid vs. State of
Raj. & Ors.) may kindly be quashed and set aside and writ
petition filed by the respondent / writ petitioner may kindly
be ordered to be dismissed with cost.
Any other appropriate order or direction, which this
Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour
of the appellants."
4. The brief facts leading to the instant controversy are that the
appellants issued Advertisement No. 04/2023 dated 13.07.2023,
inviting applications for regular appointment by way of direct
recruitment to 249 posts of Unani Medical Officers under the
Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy
Service Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1973').
4.1 The respondents/writ petitioners were among the aspirants
who had applied pursuant to the said advertisement. After the
conduct of the selection process for the aforesaid posts, the
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:16:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38791-DB] (5 of 23) [SAW-1123/2024]
appellants issued a provisional select list on 11.09.2023, followed
by a final merit list on 22.09.2023, in respect of the advertised
vacancies. In the said merit list, however, the candidature of the
respondent/writ petitioners came to be excluded on the ground of
them being over-aged.
4.2. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents approached this Court
by preferring Civil Writ Petitions, wherein they inter alia pleaded
that they were registered Unani Medical Practitioner, appointed
under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), and have been
continuously serving as temporary employees in the Medical and
Health Department on the post of Unani Medical Officer. It was
contended that by virtue of their service, they were entitled to age
relaxation to the extent of the period of service rendered, subject
to a maximum of 5 years, in terms of Clause 12 of the
advertisement. In addition, being a member of the Other
Backward Classes (Non-Creamy Layer), they were also entitled to
relaxation under Rule 9(xi) of the Rules of 1973, as well as further
relaxation under Rule 9(xii) of the said rules on account of non-
holding of recruitment during the intervening years.
4.3. The case set up before the learned Single Judge was that the
statutory framework under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1973, read with
the Notification dated 23.09.2008, does not prohibit grant of
cumulative relaxation. Therefore, the restrictive stipulation
contained in the advertisement to the effect that the benefit of
relaxation could not be availed cumulatively was de hors the
Rules, and liable to be struck down.
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:16:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38791-DB] (6 of 23) [SAW-1123/2024]
4.4. The appellants, on the other hand, opposed the writ petition
contending that the advertisement had been issued strictly in
accordance with the applicable service rules, and that the age
relaxation contemplated therein was intended to operate
independently, without being cumulative. Reliance was placed on
certain decisions of this Court, including Dr. Dayaram Saran &
Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition no.
13782/2023 decided by this Hon'ble Court on 27.09.2023) and
Dhuleshwar Ghogra v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil
Writ Petition No. 16192/2022 decided by this Hon'ble Court on
19.05.2023), to submit that the matter stood covered against the
writ petitioners.
4.5. The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival
submissions, came to the conclusion that the Rules of 1973 and
the subsequent Notification of 2008 admit of cumulative age
relaxation, and that the contrary stipulation in the advertisement
could not override the statutory framework. Consequently, the writ
petition was allowed by quashing the impugned stipulation in the
advertisement and directing the appellants to extend the benefit
of cumulative relaxation to the writ petitioners and to reconsider
their candidature accordingly.
5. Mr. Piyush Bhandari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in
interpreting the Rules of 1973 to permit cumulative age
relaxation. According to the appellants, the true intent of the rule-
making authority, as reflected in the advertisement as well as the
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:16:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38791-DB] (7 of 23) [SAW-1123/2024]
consistent recruitment practice, was that age relaxation under
different heads could be availed only independently and not
cumulatively.
5.1. Learned counsel further submitted that once the writ
petitioners had consciously applied under Advertisement No.
04/2023, they were bound by its terms and conditions. Having
participated in the selection process with full knowledge, they
could not subsequently challenge the stipulations of the
advertisement merely because the outcome was not favourable to
them.
5.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the writ petitioners were
estopped, by the doctrine of estoppel and acquiescence, from
questioning the validity of the advertisement after having
participated in the recruitment process and having been declared
ineligible on the ground of being over-aged.
5.3. Learned counsel submitted that the decisions of this Hon'ble
Court in the cases of Dr. Dayaram Saran & Ors. (supra) and
Dhuleshwar Ghogra (supra) clearly cover the present
controversy, and the learned Single Judge failed to follow the ratio
of the said judgments.
5.4. Learned counsel further submitted that age relaxation is in
the nature of a concession or policy indulgence, and not a vested
right of any candidate. Hence, the writ petitioners could not claim
aggregation of multiple relaxations as a matter of legal
entitlement.
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:16:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38791-DB] (8 of 23) [SAW-1123/2024]
5.5. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that acceptance of
cumulative relaxation would open the floodgates for candidates far
beyond the prescribed age limit to claim eligibility, thereby
unsettling the level playing field in recruitment and defeating the
very object of fixing an age criteria for direct recruitment.
6. Per contra, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Ojha, Mr. Mahendra Thanvi and
Mr. Suniel Purohit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on
behalf of the appellants, submitted that the advertisement No.
04/2023 in question, insofar as it restricted age relaxation to a
non-cumulative basis, was contrary to the statutory framework
under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1973. Since the Rules themselves
contain no bar against grant of cumulative relaxation, the
restriction in the advertisement was de hors the Rules and
therefore was liable to be quashed.
6.1. It was further submitted that Rule 9 of the Rules of 1973,
read with the Notification dated 23.09.2008 issued under Article
309 of the Constitution of India, explicitly contemplates additional
relaxations in respect of categories such as OBC, SC/ST, women
candidates, reservists, and candidates affected by non-holding of
recruitment. These relaxations are to be granted cumulatively,
and any contrary stipulation in the advertisement cannot override
the statutory mandate.
6.2. It was also submitted that the respondents/writ petitioners,
being contractual Unani Medical Officers serving continuously
under the NRHM, were entitled to relaxation equal to their service
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:16:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38791-DB] (9 of 23) [SAW-1123/2024]
period (subject to 5 years), in addition to the 5 years relaxation
under Rule 9(xi) of the Rules of 1973 for OBC category
candidates, and the 3 years relaxation under Rule 9(xii) of the
said Rules for non-advertisement of vacancies. Denial of
cumulative application would defeat the very object of these
provisions.
6.3. It was further submitted that the State itself had consistently
adopted the principle of cumulative relaxation in earlier
recruitments, such as in 2013 for Unani Medical Officers, and
again in 2023 for Nursing Officers and Pharmacists, where both
service-based and category-based relaxations were extended
cumulatively. The State, having itself interpreted Rule 9 of the
Rules of 1973 in this manner, is estopped from deviating without
any amendment to the Rules.
6.4. It was also submitted that the judgments relied upon by the
appellants, particularly Dhuleshwar Ghogra (Supra) and Dr.
Dayaram Saran (Supra), were distinguishable on facts. In those
cases, Rule 265 of the Panchayati Raj Rules was under
consideration, and the issue of relaxation on account of non-
advertisement of posts was never examined. Thus, they could not
govern the present controversy.
6.5. It was further submitted that reliance was instead placed on
the Supreme Court judgments in Malik Mazhar Sultan v. UPSC
(2006) 9 SCC 507 and Ashish Kumar v. State of U.P. (2018)
3 SCC 55, which clearly held that statutory rules prevail over any
contrary condition in an advertisement. Where the Rules provide
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:16:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38791-DB] (10 of 23) [SAW-1123/2024]
for cumulative relaxation, an advertisement cannot take away that
benefit.
6.6. Lastly, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
exclusion of cumulative relaxation would amount to arbitrary
discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution,
depriving experienced contractual doctors who have long served
the State of their rightful opportunity for regularization. The
learned Single Judge therefore correctly quashed the restrictive
clause in the advertisement and directed cumulative relaxation to
be applied.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the
material available on record alongwith the judgments cited at the
Bar.
7.1. At the outset, it must be noted that the power to prescribe
qualifications, including the maximum age for entry into public
service, lies within the domain of the rule-making authority. Article
309 of the Constitution of India authorizes the appropriate
Legislature to regulate the recruitment and conditions of service of
persons serving the Union or a State. Rules framed under Article
309 are thus binding in nature, and unless shown to be ultra vires
the Constitution or the parent enactment, they must be applied in
their plain terms.
7.2. In the present case, Rule 9 of the Rules of 1973 prescribes
the age criteria for direct recruitment, along with distinct
relaxations for specific classes such as SC/ST candidates, women,
widows, divorcees, ex-servicemen, contract employees, and
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:16:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38791-DB] (11 of 23) [SAW-1123/2024]
postgraduates. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1973 (as amended) reads as
under:
"9. Age.-- A candidate for direct recruitment to the post
enumerated in the Schedule must have attained the age of 20
years and must not have attained the age of 45 years 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--
(a) by 5 years in the case of male candidates belonging to the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes;
(b) by 5 years in the case of women candidates belonging to
the general category; and
(c) by 10 years in the case of women candidates belonging to
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward
Classes;
(ii) the upper age-limit shall be 50 years in the case of
reservists, namely the Defence Service Personnel who were
transferred to the Reserve;
(iii) the upper age limit mentioned above shall not apply in the
case of an ex-prisoner who had served under the Government
on a substantive basis on any post before his conviction and
was eligible for an appointment under these Rules;
(iv) in the case of other ex-prisoners, the upper age limit
mentioned above shall be relaxed by a period equal to the
term of imprisonment served by him provided he was not
overage before his conviction and was eligible for appointment
under these Rules;
(v) a person appointed temporarily to the post in the Service
shall be deemed to be within the age-limit had he been within
the age-limit when he was initially appointed even though he
has crossed the age-limit when he appears finally before the
Commission and shall be allowed up to two chances had he
been eligible as such at the time of his initial appointment;
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:16:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38791-DB] (12 of 23) [SAW-1123/2024]
(vi) the upper age-limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by a
period equal to the service rendered in the National Cadet
Corps in the case of Cadet Instructors and if the resultant age
does not exceed the prescribed maximum age-limit by more
than three years, such candidates shall be deemed to be
within the prescribed age-limit;
(vii) notwithstanding anything contained contrary in the Rules,
in the case of persons serving in connection with the affairs of
the State in substantive capacity, the upper age-limit shall be
40 years for direct recruitment to posts filled in by competitive
examinations or in case of posts filled in through the
Commission by interview. This relaxation shall not apply to
urgent temporary appointments;
(viii) the Released Emergency Commissioned Officers & Short
Service Commissioned Officers after release from Army shall
be deemed to be within the age-limit even though they have
crossed the age-limit when they appear before Commission
had they been eligible as such at the time of joining the
Commission in the Army;
(ix) there shall be no age limit in the case of widows and
divorcee women.
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 divorcee, she will have to
furnish the proof of divorce;
(x) the upper age limit shall be relaxed by three years in the
case of candidates holding a post-graduate degree in Ayurved;
(xi) the upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by 5
years in the case of candidates belonging to the Other
Backward Classes;
(xii) 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;
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:16:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38791-DB] (13 of 23) [SAW-1123/2024]
(xiii) the upper age limit mentioned above, for the person who
is continuously working on contract basis as Ayurved
Chikitsadhikari, Homoeopathy Chikitsadhikari, Unani
Chikitsadhikari in Government, Chief Minister BPL Jeevan
Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health Mission shall be relaxed by
the period equal to the service rendered by him subject to
maximum of five years."
7.3. A plain reading of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1973 makes it
evident that the legislature has consciously and specifically
enumerated distinct relaxations for different categories. Each of
the provisos operates independently and caters to a particular
class of candidates, having regard to the underlying object for
which the relaxation is carved out. For instance, widows and
divorcee women are completely exempted from the age bar;
postgraduates are given a three-year relaxation; ex-servicemen
and contract employees are given benefit of their rendered
service, subject to ceiling. However, there is no indication that
multiple relaxations may be aggregated unless so provided. The
Rules, therefore, are silent on the cumulative or non-cumulative
nature of age concessions.
7.4. This Court observes that the submission of the respondents
that in the absence of an express prohibition, cumulative
relaxation should be permitted, cannot be accepted at the outset.
Firstly, Rule 9 of the Rules of 1973 has been framed under Article
309 of the Constitution of India and therefore has statutory force.
As per the settled legal position, the Courts cannot add words or
supply omissions to expand the scope of the Rule. Secondly, the
principle of casus omissus is well-settled -- where the Rule-maker
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:16:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38791-DB] (14 of 23) [SAW-1123/2024]
has not provided for a situation, the Court cannot, under the guise
of interpretation, legislate.
7.5. It is also deemed appropriate to recall the observations of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in the case of Rachna v. Union
of India, (2021) 5 SCC 638 at page 657, para 43, wherein it
was held thus:
"The horizontal reservation and relaxation... is a matter of
governmental policy... It is not in the domain of the courts to
embark upon an inquiry as to whether a particular public
policy is wise and acceptable or whether better policy could be
evolved. The Court can only interfere if the policy framed is
absolutely capricious and non-informed by reasons, or totally
arbitrary, offending the basic requirement of Article 14 of the
Constitution."
Further, in para 45 at page 658, it was clarified that:
"Judicial review of a policy decision and to issue mandamus to
frame policy in a particular manner are absolutely different... It
is within the realm of the executive to take a policy decision
based on the prevailing circumstances for better
administration... The court is called upon to consider the
validity of a policy decision only when a challenge is made that
such policy decision infringes fundamental rights guaranteed
by the Constitution or any other statutory right."
Thus, while the Court can interpret and clarify the application of
existing Rules, it cannot direct the State to legislate or frame
policy in a particular manner.
7.6. Having regard to the above framework, this Court is of the
considered view that the scheme of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1973
demonstrates a deliberate legislative design in carving out age
relaxations category-wise. Article 309 of the Constitution of India
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:16:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38791-DB] (15 of 23) [SAW-1123/2024]
empowers the rule-making authority to stipulate such conditions
of eligibility as it may deem fit in public interest. Once the
authority, acting under such constitutional mandate, has
consciously provided differentiated relaxations with clear limits,
the Court cannot, in exercise of interpretative power, either
enlarge the scope or permit cumulative benefits in the absence of
an express enabling provision.
7.7. The very object of distinct relaxations is to balance the
considerations of equity and administrative efficiency for each
class of candidates. For example, unlimited relaxation for widows
and divorcees is premised on their peculiar social disadvantage; a
capped relaxation for contract employees seeks to recognize
service already rendered; a limited relaxation for postgraduates
reflects the State's policy to incentivize higher education without
disturbing the overall age balance in service. To allow aggregation
across these categories would dilute the carefully crafted scheme,
leading to anomalous results unintended by the rule-making
authority.
7.8. Moreover, the principle that separate relaxations cannot be
clubbed unless specifically provided has been consistently
recognized. In service jurisprudence, cumulative relaxation is
treated as an exception and not the norm. The absence of any
enabling clause in Rule 9 of the Rules of 1973 must, therefore, be
construed as a conscious exclusion by the framers of the Rules. To
read into it a right of cumulative relaxation would not only violate
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:16:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38791-DB] (16 of 23) [SAW-1123/2024]
the settled doctrine of casus omissus but also amount to judicial
legislation, which is impermissible.
7.9. In this backdrop, the plea advanced on behalf of the
respondents, that cumulative relaxation must be inferred in the
interest of fairness, is untenable. Fairness in recruitment is itself a
product of adherence to the rule of law. Once the Rules of 1973,
framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, prescribe
distinct relaxations, fairness demands their uniform application to
all candidates in that category, not their alteration through judicial
innovation. Thus, the interpretation that emerges is that each
relaxation carved out under Rule 9 operates within its own field
and must be applied independently. Cumulative relaxation is
impermissible unless expressly provided by the Rules themselves.
7.10. At this stage, it is considered appropriate to make reference
of the judgment of this Hon'ble Court rendered in the case of Alsa
Ram Meghwal v. RPSC & Anr.,(D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W)
No. 1141/2008, decided on 29.04.2016). In the said case, the
Hon'ble Division Bench was confronted with a claim for cumulative
relaxation by an in-service candidate who also belonged to a
reserved category. The Court categorically rejected such claim,
holding that once the Rules prescribe a distinct upper age limit for
in-service candidates, the same is a substantive provision and not
a relaxation, and that no further benefit can be superimposed
thereupon under other clauses.
7.11. Furthermore, the Explanatory Note appended to the
advertisement in Alsa Ram Meghwal (Supra), which stipulated
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:16:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38791-DB] (17 of 23) [SAW-1123/2024]
that if a candidate was entitled to relaxation under more than one
category, he/she could avail benefit under only one clause. The
Hon'ble Division Bench upheld the validity of such stipulation,
observing that it was consistent with the scheme of the Rules and
that permitting aggregation would amount to reading into the
Rules what was never intended by the rule-making authority.
7.12. The principle emerging from Alsa Ram Meghwal (Supra)
thus reinforces the position that each category of relaxation has
an independent policy rationale, and that cumulative relaxation is
not permissible unless expressly provided for either in the Rules or
in the advertisement.
7.13. It is noteworthy that the aforesaid judgment was
subsequently relied upon by the judgment of learned Single Judge
in the case of Dhuleshwar Ghogra (Supra). In Dhuleshwar
Ghogra (Supra), the Court reiterated the principle that
cumulative relaxation in age is impermissible under the Rules of
1973, and that each relaxation provision applies to a distinct class
of candidates with its own policy objective. Thus, the present
controversy stands squarely covered by the ratio of Alsa Ram
Meghwal (Supra) as affirmed and applied in Dhuleshwar
Ghogra (Supra).
7.13.1. In Dhuleshwar Ghogra (supra), the learned Single
Bench of this Court, by giving a concrete example, demonstrated
the impractical outcome of permitting cumulative relaxations of
the kind claimed in the present case. It was observed that such an
interpretation would virtually nullify the prescribed upper age limit
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:16:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38791-DB] (18 of 23) [SAW-1123/2024]
and lead to indefinite eligibility, which the Rule-making authority
never intended. 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."
7.14. It is of significance that in the instant case also
advertisement pursuant to which the present selection process
was initiated expressly stipulates that the benefit of age relaxation
shall be non-cumulative. The relevant portion of the
advertisement in question i.e. Advertisement No.04/2023 reads as
follows :-
fofHkUu oxksZ @vU; fof'k'B Jsf.k;ksa gsrq ns; vk;q lhek esa NwV ds izko/kku
dz- la- vH;fFkZ;ksa dk oxZ ,oa vU; fof'k'B Jsf.k;ka vf/kdre vk;q esa ns; NwV
1- jktLFkku jkT; ds vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr] fiNM+k oxZ 5 o'kZ
,oa vkfkFkZd :i ls detksj oxZ ds iq:'k vH;FkhZ
Male candidates belonging to the Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled tribes, Other Backward Classes,
Most Backward Classes of Rajasthan State and
EWS.
2- LkekU; oxZ dh efgyk 5 o'kZ
Women Candidates belonging to General Category.
3- jktLFkku jkT; ds vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr] fiNM+k oxZ 10 o'kZ
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:16:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38791-DB] (19 of 23) [SAW-1123/2024]
,oa vkfkFkZd :i ls detksj oxZ dhs efgyk vH;FkhZ
Women candidates belonging to the Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled tribes, Other Backward Classes,
Most Backward Classes of Rajasthan State and
EWS.
4- fo/kok ,oa fofNUu fookg ¼ifjR;Drk½ efgyk vf/kdre vk;q lhek ugha
Widow and divorcee Women
Explanation :- In the case of widow, she will
have to furnish a certificate of death of her
husband from the Competent Authority and in
case of divorcee, she will have to furnish the proof
of divorce.
5- fjtfofZLV vFkkZr izfrj{kk lsok ds deZpkjh ftudk fjtoZ esa lhekUrj.k dj fn;k x;k gks] ds ekeys esa
mifjof.kZr mijh vk;q lhek 50 o'kZ gksxhA
The upper age limit shall be 50 years in the case of reservists, namely
the Defence Service personnel who were transferred in the Reserve.
6- mifjof.kZr mijh vk;q lhek ,sls HkwriwoZ dSnh ds ekeys esa ykxw ugha gksxh] tks viuh nks'kflf) ds iwoZ
ljdkj ds v/khu fdlh in ij substantive rkSj ij lsok dj ;qdk Fkk vkSj bu fu;eksa ds v/khu
fu;qfdr dk ik= FkkA
The upper age limit mentioned above shall not apply in the case of an
ex-prisoner who had served under the Government on a substantive
basis on any post before his conviction and was eligible for appointment
under these Rules.
7- vU; HkwriwoZ dSnh tks nf.Mr gksus ls iwoZ vf/kdk;q dk ugha Fkk vkSj bu fu;eksa ds rgr fu;qfDr ds ;ksX;
Fkk] ds ekeys esa dkjkokl esa O;rhr dh xbZ vof/k ds cjkcj mifjof.fkZr mijh vk;q lhek NwV esa gksxhA
In the case of other ex-prisoners, the upper age limit mentioned above
shall be relaxed by a period equal to the term of imprisonment served
by him provided he was not over age before his conviction and was
eligible for appointment under these Rules.
8- bl lsok ¼jktLFkku vk;qosZfnd ];wukuh] gksE;ksiSfFkd ,oa Hkkjrh; fpfdRlk lsok fu;e] 1973½ ds fdlh
in ij vLFkkbZ fu;qDr O;fDr ;fn izkjfEHkd fu;qfDr ds le; vk;q lhek esa Fks rks mUgsa vk;q lhek esa gh
le>kk tk;sxk] pkgs os MkS- loZiYyh jk/kkd`'.ku jktLFkku vk;qosZn fo'ofo|ky;] tks/kiqj ds le{k
vk[kjh mifLFkfr ds le; mls ikj dj lds gksA vkSj ;fn os izkjfEHkd fu;qfDr ds le; bl izdkj ik=
Fks rks mUgsa volj fn;s tkosaxsA
A person appointed temporarily to the post in the service (The
rajasthan ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and naturopathy
service Rules 1973) Shall be deemed to be within the age limit
had when he was initially appointed even though he has crossed
the age limit when he appears finally before the Dr. Sarvapalli
Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurveda University Jodhpur and shall
be allowed upto two chances had he been eligible as such at the
time of his initial appointment.
9- dSMsV vuqns'kdksa ds ekeys esa mifjof.kZr mijh vk;q lhek esa] muds }kjk jk"Vªh; dSMsV dksj esa dh xbZ
lsok ds cjkcj dh dkykof/k dks f'kfFkZy fd;k tk;sxk ;fn ifjekf.kd vk;q fofgr vf/kdre vk;q lhek
ls rhu o'kZ ls vf/kd u gks rks ,sls vH;FkhZ dks fofgr vk;q lhek esa le>k tk;sxkA
That the upper age limit mentioned above, shall be relaxed by a period
equal to the service rendered in the National Cadet Corpos in the case
of Cadet Instructors and if the resultant age does not exceed the
prescribed maximum age limit by more than three years, such
candidates shall be deemed to be within the prescribed age limit.
10- fueqZDr vkikr deh'ku izkIr vf/kdkfj;ksa dks ,oa y?kq lsok deh'ku izkIr vf/kdkfj;ksa dks] lsuk ls fueqZDr
gksus ds i'pkr tc os jktLFkku vk;qosZn fo'ofo|ky;] tks/kiqj ds le{k mifLFkr gks] vk;q lhek esa
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:16:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38791-DB] (20 of 23) [SAW-1123/2024]
le>k tk;sxk pkgs mUgksaus vk;q lhek ikj dj yh gks ;fn os lsuk esa deh'ku xzg.k djus ds le; vk;q
lhek dh n`f"V ls ik= FksA
That the Released Emergency Commissioned Officers & Short Service
Commissioned Officers after release from Army shall be deemed to be
within the age-limit even though they have cross the age-limit when
they appear before University had they been eligible as such at the time
of their joining the Commission in the Army.
11- jktLFkku fnO;kaxtu vf/kdkj fu;e] 2-018 ds vuqlkj fu%'kDrtu O;fDr;ksa ds fy;s mij mYysf[kr
mijh vk;q lhek esa 05 o'kZ dh NwV ns; gksxhA
According to the Rajasthan Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules,
2018, the upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by 05 years
for persons with benchmarks disabilities.
12- tks O;fDr jkT; ljdkj] ,u-vkj-,p-,e eq[;ea=h ch-ih-,y- thou j{kk dks'k ds rgr ;wukuh
fpfdRlkf/kdkfj;ksa ds in ij yxkrkj dke dj jgk gS] dks dh xbZ lsok ds cjkcj vof/k esa mi;qZDr
vf/kdre vk;q lhek esa NwV nh tk;sxh tks fd vf/kdre ikap o"kZ dh gksxhA
The upper age limit mentioned above, for the person who is
continuously working as Unani Chikitsadhikari in Government,
Chief Minister BPS Jeeva Raksha Kosh, National Rural Health
Mission shall be relaxed by the period equal to the service
rendered by him subject to maximum five years.
13- ;wukuh esa Lukrdksrj mikf/k j[kus okys mEehnokjksa ds ekeys esa mijh vk;q lhek esa rhu o"kZ dh NwV nh
tk;sxhA
The upper age limit shall be relaxed by three years in the case of
candidates holding post graduate Degree in Unani.
14- ¼v½ & dkfeZd foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk fnukad 23-09-2008 ds vuqlkj xr o'kksZ esa bu inksa ij HkrhZ ugha
fd;s tkus ds dkj.k vf/kdre vk;q lhek es 03 o'kZ f'kfFkyrk fn;s tkus dk izko/kku gSA
As per DOP Notification No.F.7(6) DOP/A-II/2008 Dated 23-09-08 "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 heshe
is not overage by more than 3 years."
mDr izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr pwafd foHkkx }kjk o"kZ 2013 esa HkrhZ dh xbZ gS ftlesa vk;q x.kuk rRle; ds
vk/kkj ij dh xbZ gS vr% vf/klwpuk fnukad 23-09-2008 ds dze esa fu;ekuqlkj vf/kdre vk;q lhek esa
03 o'kZ dh f'kfFkyrk ns; gksxhA
15- jktLFkku flfoy lsok ¼HkwriwoZ lSfudksa dk vkesyu½ fu;e] 1988 ds vuqlkj HkwriwoZ lSfudksa dks mijh
vk;q lhek esa 05 o'kZ dh NwV ns; gksxh ikjUrq ;g fd f'kfFkyhdj.k ds i'pkr ;fn vuqKs; vk;q 50 o'kZ
ls vf/kd fudyrh gS rks rks mijh vk;q lhek 50 o'kZ ykxw gksxhA
According to the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-servicemen)
Rules, 1988, relaxation in upper age limit shall be five years to Ex-
servicemen. Provided that if permissible age after relaxation works out
to be more than 50 years then upper age limit of 50 years will be
applicable.
Li"Vhdj.k %& dkfeZe ¼d&2½ foHkkx ds ifji= fnukad 22-08-2019 ds vuqlkj jktLFkku flfoy lsok
¼HkwriwoZ lSfudksa dk vkesyu½ fu;e] 1988 ;Fkkla'kksf/kr ds izko/kkuksa ds gksrs gq, Hkh fdlh HkrhZ ls lacf/kr
lsok fu;eksa esa vk;q lac/kh tks f'kfFkyrk vU; yksd lsodksa@vH;fFkZ;ksa dks ns; gS] og HkwriwoZ lSfud dks
Hkh ns; gksxh vFkkZr vk;q lac/kh f'kfFkfyrk ds lEca/k esa nksuksa fu;eksa esa tks Hkh fgrdj izko/kku gS]mmldk
ykHk HkwriwoZ lSfudksa dks feysxkA
uksV&
1- mi;qZDr of.kZr vk;q lhek esa NwV ds izko/kku valp;h -¼non-cumulative½ gS] vFkkZr
vHk;fFkZ;ksa dks mi;qqZDr of.kZr fdlh Hkh ,d izko/kku dk vf/kdre vk;q lhek esa NwV dk ykHk
fn;k tk;sxk] ,d ls vf/kd izko/kkuksa dks tksM+ dj vk;qlhek esa NwV dk ykHk ugha fn;k
tk;sxkA
2- fo'ks'k ;ksX;tu dks mijh vk;q lhek es fu;ekuqlkj ns; NwV ds i'pkr vfrfjDr NwV ns; gksxhA
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:16:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38791-DB] (21 of 23) [SAW-1123/2024]
3- dkfeZd ¼d&2½ foHkkx ds ifji= fnukad 26-07-2017 ds vuqlkj ;fn fdlh vkjf{kr oxZ
(SC/ST/BC/MBC/EWS) ds vH;FkhZ }kjk 'kqYd ds vfrfjDr mudks ns; fdlh vU; fj;k;r
¼tSls &vk;qlhek vkfn½ dk ykHk fn;k tkrk gS rks mls vukjf{kr fjfdR;ksa ds izfr fopkfjr ugha fd;k
tk;sxkA
4- jktLFkku lsok fu;e ds vuqlkj ljdkjh deZpkjh gsrq lsokfuo`fr dh vk;q 60 o'kZ fu/kkZfjr gSA blfy,
fu;qfDr fnfukad rd vH;FkhZ dh vk;q 60 o'kZ ls vf/kd ugha gksuh pkfg,A
5- vk;q lhek esa NwV ds izko/kku fgUnh o vaxzsth Hkk'kk esa vafdr fd;s x;s gSA fdlh izdkj ds fof/kd okn
dh fLFkfr esa vaxzsth Hkk"kk esa vafdr izko/kku gh ekU; gksxsaA
7.14.1. This Court further observes that once such a condition is
notified to all prospective applicants at the very threshold, it binds
both the candidates as well as the recruiting authority, as
participation in the process is premised on acceptance of those
terms. It is a settled principle that conditions of recruitment
specifically incorporated in the advertisement cannot be diluted or
re-written by judicial interpretation, unless they are shown to be
in direct conflict with the parent Rules or the Constitution. In the
present case, the stipulation of non-cumulative relaxation is not
only consistent with the scheme of Rule 9 of the Rules of 1973 but
also reinforces the legislative intent that each category of
relaxation operates independently. This leaves no scope to infer a
right of cumulative benefit.
7.15. In this backdrop, the correct legal position can be
summarized in the following manner:
• If the Rule itself provides for cumulative relaxation,
the same must be respected.
• If the Rule prescribes non-cumulative relaxation, then
the Rule will prevail.
• If the Rule is silent, the advertisement will govern the
recruitment (as in the present case).
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:16:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38791-DB] (22 of 23) [SAW-1123/2024]
• If both the Rule and the advertisement are silent, the
default position is that relaxation will be non-
cumulative.
• If the State intends to extend cumulative benefit, it
must do so by express stipulation in the Rule or the
advertisement.
• Thus, if the Rule is speaking, the Rule will prevail; if
silent, the advertisement will prevail. ("Rules of the
game cannot be changed midway after the process of
appointment to public post has already begun.")
7.16. Tested on these touchstones, the respondents/writ
petitioners cannot claim cumulative relaxation, as the Rules of
1973 are silent and the advertisement explicitly rules out such
aggregation. Thus the binding terms of the advertisement cannot
be disregarded and travelled beyond the governing framework.
7.17. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds
that the Rules of 1973 do not envisage cumulative age relaxation
across different categories. Each relaxation under Rule 9 of the
said Rules is to be applied independently within its own sphere.
The express stipulation in the advertisement that relaxations shall
be non-cumulative is consistent with the statutory framework and
cannot be termed arbitrary or de hors the Rules. Therefore, the
learned Single Judge was not justified in directing the appellants
to extend cumulative relaxation to the respondents.
8. Consequently, the present special appeals are allowed, and
accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 21.05.2024 passed by
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:16:28 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:38791-DB] (23 of 23) [SAW-1123/2024]
the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. All pending
applications stand disposed of.
(SANDEEP TANEJA),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
(Uploaded on 10/09/2025 at 03:16:28 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
