Ashik Kumar vs Union Of India
2026 Latest Caselaw 5658 Raj

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Ashik Kumar vs Union Of India on 13 April, 2026

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2026:RJ-JD:15323-DB]

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                   D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14209/2019

Ashik Kumar S/o Vijay Singh, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of
Village Narayanpur, Panchayat- Panchrukhi, Ward No. 16, Po
Pedibheetal, District- Saaran (Bihar).
                                                                          ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.         Union     Of    India,       Through         The      Secretary       To   The
           Government        Of     India, Ministry           Of      Defence,    Raksha
           Bhawan New Delhi.
2.         Air Officer Commanding-In-Chief, South Western Air
           Command, Indian Air Force, Sector 09 Gandhi Nagar
           (Gujarat), 382009.
3.         Chief Administrative Officer, Air Force Station Ratanada
           Jodhpur (Raj.).
4.         Shri Mustaq Ahmed Bhatt, Telephone Operator, No. 32,
           Wing, Air Force C/o 56 Apo.
                                                                       ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. Siddharth Tatiya
                                     Mr. Bhutid Gehlot
For Respondent(s)              :     Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal for
                                     Mr. Tirupati Chandra



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Judgment

1. Date of conclusion of arguments 17.03.2026

2. Date on which judgment was reserved 17.03.2026

3. Whether the full judgment or only the operative part is pronounced: Full Judgment

4. Date of pronouncement 13.04.2026

Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:

1. The present writ petition Article 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following

reliefs:

(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 01:35:25 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15323-DB] (2 of 13) [CW-14209/2019]

"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that by appropriate writ, order or direction:

a) the writ petition may kindly be allowed;

b) the judgment dated 11.07.2019 (Annex-9) passed by the learned tribunal may kindly be quashed and set asie;

and

c) the respondent may be directed to provide suitable appointment to the petitioner with all consequential benefits; or

d) any other appropriate writ, order of direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the fact and circumstances of the case any kindly be passed; and/or

e) Costs may be awarded to the petitioner."

2. The brief facts of the case are that that the petitioner, being

an aspirant for the post of Telephone Operator Grade-II in the

Indian Air Force, participated in a recruitment process initiated

pursuant to an advertisement dated 04.04.2015 issued by the

respondent authorities for filling up four posts, comprising two

unreserved and two reserved vacancies. The prescribed age limit

for candidates under the unreserved category was 18 to 25 years,

with relaxation applicable only to specified reserved categories.

2.1. The petitioner, claiming to be fully eligible, applied within time

and participated in the selection process, which comprised a

written examination, practical/skill test and interview conducted

on 09.08.2015. Upon culmination of the selection process, a merit

list dated 10.08.2015 was prepared, wherein the petitioner was

placed at Serial No.1 in the standby list (General Category) and at

Serial No.3 in the overall merit list of unreserved candidates.

(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 01:35:25 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15323-DB] (3 of 13) [CW-14209/2019]

2.2. Respondent No.4, namely Shri Mustaq Ahmed Bhat, was

selected at Serial No.2 in the unreserved category. The petitioner,

upon obtaining information under the Right to Information Act,

came to know that Respondent No.4, whose date of birth is

21.03.1988, was aged about 27 years, 1 month and 4 days on the

last date of submission of applications, i.e., 25.04.2015, and thus

exceeded the prescribed upper age limit of 25 years applicable to

the unreserved category.

2.3. The petitioner raised objections before the respondent

authorities contending that Respondent No.4 was ineligible being

overage, and that his selection and appointment were contrary to

the recruitment rules and advertisement conditions. However, no

relief was granted to the petitioner.

2.4. The petitioner preferred an Original Application being O.A.

No. 290/00308/2016 before the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Jodhpur Bench, challenging the selection and appointment of

Respondent No.4 and seeking his own appointment against the

said post. The respondent authorities justified the selection of

Respondent No.4 by contending that he was entitled to age

relaxation of five years under the applicable rules relating to

residents of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, on the basis of a

certificate issued by the District Magistrate, Budgam, certifying his

residence in the Kashmir Division for a part of the relevant period.

2.5. The learned Tribunal, vide order dated 11.01.2018, initially

directed the respondent authorities to ascertain whether the

benefit of age relaxation under the relevant rules had been

(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 01:35:25 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15323-DB] (4 of 13) [CW-14209/2019]

extended beyond 31.12.2013, and to pass a speaking order

accordingly. Pursuant thereto, a speaking order dated 27.02.2018

was passed by the respondent authorities holding that such

benefit had indeed been extended and that the appointment of

Respondent No.4 was valid. The petitioner challenged the

aforesaid order before this Court by way of D.B. Civil Writ Petition

No. 8282/2018, which was disposed of on 05.10.2018 by

remanding the matter back to the learned Tribunal with specific

directions to adjudicate upon two issues, namely:

"(i) whether the benefit of age relaxation was available only to those persons domiciled in the Kashmir Division for the entire period from 01.01.1980 to 31.12.1989 or also for a part thereof; and

(ii) whether such age relaxation could be availed by candidates applying under the unreserved category."

2.6. Upon remand, the learned Tribunal reheard the matter and,

vide the impugned order dated 11.07.2019, answered both the

aforesaid issues in favour of Respondent No.4, holding that:

• residence for a part of the stipulated period would suffice for availing age relaxation; and • the benefit of such relaxation would prevail over the conditions contained in the advertisement, even in respect of unreserved category candidates.

2.7. The learned Tribunal consequently dismissed the Original

Application, holding that the selection of Respondent No.4 was

valid and that no illegality was made out. Being aggrieved by the

aforesaid judgment dated 11.07.2019 passed by the Central

(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 01:35:25 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15323-DB] (5 of 13) [CW-14209/2019]

Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, the petitioner has

preferred the present writ petition.

3. Mr. Siddharth Tatiya & Mr. Bhutid Gehlot, learned counsel for

the petitioner submitted that the entire controversy lies in the

illegal appointment of Respondent No.4 to the post of Telephone

Operator Grade-II in the Indian Air Force by granting him age

relaxation, despite the fact that he was admittedly overage under

the unreserved category on the relevant cut-off date. It was

submitted that Respondent No.4, being 27 years, 1 month and 4

days old as on the last date of submission of application, i.e.,

25.04.2015, was clearly ineligible under the terms of the

advertisement, which prescribed the upper age limit of 25 years

for general category candidates.

3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the advertisement

governing the recruitment in question categorically stipulated that

age relaxation was admissible only to candidates belonging to

reserved categories such as SC/ST/OBC/PH/Ex-servicemen, and

there was no provision whatsoever for granting age relaxation to

candidates applying under the unreserved category. It was thus

contended that the grant of age relaxation to Respondent No.4 is

ex facie contrary to the recruitment rules as well as the terms of

the advertisement, and therefore, the selection process stands

vitiated.

3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended

that it is a settled proposition of law that the "rules of the game"

cannot be altered after the commencement of the selection

(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 01:35:25 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15323-DB] (6 of 13) [CW-14209/2019]

process, and eligibility conditions must strictly conform to the

advertisement and governing recruitment rules. It is submitted

that any deviation therefrom would be violative of Articles 14 and

16 of the Constitution of India, as it results in unequal treatment

and arbitrariness in public employment.

3.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the reliance placed

by the respondents upon the Residents of Jammu and Kashmir

(Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1997 (and earlier

framework of 1995 Rules) is wholly misconceived, inasmuch as

such relaxation cannot be applied in derogation of the recruitment

rules and advertisement conditions. It was submitted that in

absence of any provision for such relaxation in the advertisement,

the same could not have been imported through executive

instructions or external notifications.

3.4. Learned counsel also submitted that even otherwise,

Respondent No.4 was not entitled to the benefit of age relaxation

under the aforesaid Rules, as he did not satisfy the essential

requirement of being "ordinarily domiciled" in the Kashmir Division

during the period from 01.01.1980 to 31.12.1989. It was

contended that Respondent No.4 was born on 21.03.1988 and, as

per the certificate relied upon by the respondents, had resided in

the said region only from 21.03.1988 to December, 1989, i.e., for

a period of approximately 1 year and 9 months.

3.5. Learned counsel submitted that the expression "ordinarily

domiciled during the period" necessarily implies a substantial and

continuous residence throughout the stipulated period and cannot

(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 01:35:25 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15323-DB] (7 of 13) [CW-14209/2019]

be interpreted to include a mere transient or fractional stay. It was

further contended that the legislative intent behind granting such

relaxation was to benefit those candidates whose education and

employment opportunities were adversely affected due to

disturbed conditions prevailing in the Kashmir Valley during the

said period, and such benefit cannot be extended to persons who

were infants during the relevant time.

3.6. Learned counsel further submitted that the certificate

produced by Respondent No.4 is not a valid domicile certificate but

merely a residence certificate, and in any case, the same does not

satisfy the requirement of domicile as understood in law. It was

contended that domicile necessarily connotes permanent

residence coupled with intention to reside, and cannot be equated

with a short duration of stay.

3.7. Learned counsel also drew the attention of this Court to the

Standard Operating Procedure dated 13.12.2013 governing the

recruitment process, which mandates that all applications must be

scrutinized strictly in terms of eligibility conditions, including age

limit, and that any application not fulfilling such criteria is liable to

be rejected outright. It is submitted that the very consideration of

Respondent No.4's candidature, despite his being overage, is

contrary to the said procedure and renders the entire selection

process arbitrary and illegal.

3.8. Learned counsel further submitted that the learned Central

Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench has committed a manifest

error in law by holding that partial residence would suffice for

(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 01:35:25 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15323-DB] (8 of 13) [CW-14209/2019]

availing age relaxation and by further holding that the statutory

rules would override the conditions stipulated in the

advertisement. It was contended that the Tribunal has failed to

appreciate that eligibility conditions must be strictly adhered to

and cannot be diluted by subsequent interpretation.

3.9. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the impugned

judgment dated 11.07.2019 passed by the Central Administrative

Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench be quashed and set aside, the selection

and appointment of Respondent No.4 be declared illegal, and the

respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner to the said post

with all consequential benefits.

3.10.Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the

following judgments:

1. Vinod Kumar Mantoo vs. High Court of Delhi, [D.B. Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13736/2009, decided on 09.12.2009];

2. Jamaluddin vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (2011) 14 SCC 725;

3. Suresh George vs. Kochi Metro Rail Ltd. and Ors. , [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 13351/2021, decided on 19.04.2022 by Hon'ble Kerala High Court];

4. Union of India & Anr. vs. Arulmozhi Iniarasu & Ors., (2011) 7 SCC 397; and

5. Tej Prakash Pathak and Ors. vs. Rajasthan High Court and Ors., [Civil Appeal No. 2634 of 2013, decided on 07.11.2024).

4. Per contra, Mr. Abhishek Aggarwal for Mr. Tirupati Chandra,

learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the

(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 01:35:25 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15323-DB] (9 of 13) [CW-14209/2019]

selection and appointment of Respondent No.4 were carried out

strictly in accordance with the applicable rules and procedure, and

no illegality or arbitrariness can be attributed to the action of the

respondent authorities. It was submitted that the petitioner,

having been placed lower in merit and only in the standby list, has

no vested right to claim appointment.

4.1. Learned counsel further submitted that Respondent No.4 was

duly entitled to age relaxation of five years under the Residents of

Jammu and Kashmir (Relaxation of Upper Age Limit) Rules, 1997,

which are statutory in nature and applicable to all Central Civil

Services and posts. It was contended that the said Rules, read

with the earlier framework of 1995 and subsequent extensions

issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT),

clearly provide that any person who had ordinarily been domiciled

in the State of Jammu and Kashmir during the period from

01.01.1980 to 31.12.1989 would be entitled to such relaxation.

4.2. Learned counsel submitted that Respondent No.4 had

furnished a valid certificate issued by the District Magistrate,

Budgam, certifying that he had resided in the Kashmir Division

from 21.03.1988 to December, 1989, and therefore fulfilled the

requirement of residence under the applicable rules. It was

contended that the rules do not prescribe any minimum duration

of residence, nor do they mandate continuous residence for the

entire period, and thus even residence for a part of the said period

would entitle a candidate to the benefit of age relaxation.

(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 01:35:25 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15323-DB] (10 of 13) [CW-14209/2019]

4.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the benefit of age

relaxation, being conferred by statutory rules framed under Article

309 of the Constitution, would prevail over the conditions

mentioned in the advertisement. It was contended that the

recruitment rules stand deemed to have been amended to the

extent of such statutory provisions, and therefore, the absence of

a specific mention of such relaxation in the advertisement would

not disentitle an otherwise eligible candidate from claiming the

benefit.

4.4. Learned counsel also submitted that the applicability of the

said relaxation had been duly extended beyond 31.12.2013 by

notifications issued by the DoPT, including notifications dated

30.09.2014 and 23.10.2015, and thus the benefit was very much

in force at the time of the recruitment process in question.

4.5. Learned counsel further contended that the learned Central

Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench has rightly appreciated the

facts and law involved in the matter and has correctly held that

Respondent No.4 was entitled to the benefit of age relaxation, and

that the same could not be denied merely on the ground that the

advertisement did not explicitly provide for such relaxation.

4.6. Learned counsel submitted that Respondent No.4, having

secured higher marks than the petitioner in the selection process,

was rightly selected on merit, and no prejudice has been caused

to the petitioner warranting interference by this Court.

4.7. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed that the present writ

petition being devoid of merit deserves to be dismissed.

(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 01:35:25 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15323-DB] (11 of 13) [CW-14209/2019]

5. Heard the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties

and has perused the material available on record.

6. This Court observes that the principal contention of the

petitioner rests on the premise that Respondent No.4 was overage

as per the terms of the advertisement and therefore ineligible for

appointment under the unreserved category. However, the record

reveals that the respondent authorities have consistently extended

the benefit of age relaxation to candidates belonging to the State

of Jammu and Kashmir under the applicable statutory framework,

which continued to remain in force at the relevant point of time.

7. This Court notes that the benefit of relaxation in upper age

limit, as extended by the Central Government from time to time,

was not a one-time measure but a continuing policy decision

aimed at addressing peculiar circumstances prevailing in the

region. The material placed on record, including the speaking

order dated 27.02.2018, clearly demonstrates that such relaxation

stood extended beyond 31.12.2013 and was operative during the

recruitment process in question.

8. This Court further observes that Respondent No.4 had produced

a certificate issued by the competent authority i.e. the District

Magistrate, Budgam, certifying his residence in the Kashmir

Division during the relevant period. The respondent authorities,

upon verification of the said certificate, granted the benefit of age

relaxation in terms of the prevailing rules and executive

instructions, which had been uniformly applied.

(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 01:35:25 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15323-DB] (12 of 13) [CW-14209/2019]

9. This Court finds that the learned Central Administrative

Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, while adjudicating the matter after

remand, has considered the relevant rules, notifications and

factual aspects in their entirety, and has arrived at a reasoned

conclusion that residence for a part of the stipulated period would

not disentitle a candidate from availing the benefit of age

relaxation, particularly in light of the object and purpose of the

policy.

10. This Court further observes that the consistent stand of the

Union of India in extending such benefit and the absence of any

material to show arbitrary or selective application thereof,

reinforces the validity of the action taken by the respondent

authorities in granting age relaxation to Respondent No.4.

11. This Court also notes that Respondent No.4 has secured

higher marks than the petitioner in the selection process and has

been appointed on merit. The petitioner, having been placed in the

standby list, cannot claim appointment as a matter of right in the

absence of any illegality vitiating the selection.

12. This Court observes that there is no quarrel with the

propositions of law laid down in the aforesaid judgments.

However, in the present case, the grant of age relaxation to

Respondent No.4 is not dehors the governing framework, but is

traceable to a consistent and continuing policy of the Union of

India, extended from time to time, and duly applied by the

competent authorities. The factual matrix herein, particularly the

existence of a valid certificate issued by the competent authority

(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 01:35:25 PM)

[2026:RJ-JD:15323-DB] (13 of 13) [CW-14209/2019]

and the extension of the benefit during the relevant period,

distinguishes the present case from the precedents relied upon by

the petitioner. Accordingly, the said judgments do not advance the

case of the petitioner in the peculiar facts and circumstances of

the present matter.

13. Consequently, this Court finds that the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the present case, coupled with the consistent

policy of granting relaxation and its due application by the

respondent authorities, do not warrant interference with the

impugned order dated 11.07.2019.

14. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. Pending

application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J SKant/-

(Uploaded on 15/04/2026 at 01:35:25 PM)

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)