1991 Supreme(Raj) 827
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
G.S.Singhvi, J.
Tara Dutt Mathur - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1381 of 1981.
Decided On : 1-09-1991
The court held that it is mandatory for the appointing authority/ competent authority to make year wise determination of vacancies under the various service rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution by the Governor of Rajasthan.
Headnote:
RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION - AGE LIMIT - ELIGIBILITY - DETERMINATION OF VACANCIES - YEAR WISE - DIRECT RECRUITMENT - PROMOTION - RULES - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner challenged the action of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in rejecting his candidature for appointment on the post of Assistant Director, Public Relation on the ground of his having crossed the age limit of 40 years.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that it is mandatory for the appointing authority/ competent authority to make year wise determination of vacancies under the various service rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution by the Governor of Rajasthan. The determination of vacancies has to be made for direct recruitment as well as for promotion. The candidates who fulfil the requirement of conditions regarding age cannot be treated as ineligible merely because the Commission or the competent authority has failed to make advertisement of the vacancies, if against the vacancies of a particular year the candidate was eligible. The candidate cannot be deprived of a right to be selected merely because at the time of actual selection, the candidate has crossed the upper age limit.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was eligible for the post of Assistant Director, Public Relation despite crossing the age limit of 40 years.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decisions in Prakash Chand and others v. State of Rajasthan, 1990(2) RLR 1 and Dr. Rajeev Mathur v. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in 1991(2) RLR 113, to hold that the petitioner was eligible for the post of Assistant Director, Public Relation despite crossing the age limit of 40 years. The court held that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission was in error in treating the petitioner as ineligible for being considered for selection on the post of Assistant Director, Public Relations.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and declared the selection made by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission to be illegal. However, the court did not quash the appointments of respondents No. 3 to 5 after a period of 9 years. The court directed the respondent State of Rajasthan to create a supernumerary post in the cadre of Assistant Director, Public Relations and to direct the R.P.S.C. to consider the candidature of the petitioner against such supernumerary post.
JUDGMENT
1. - Petitioner has challenged the action of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in rejecting his candidature for appointment on the post of Assistant Director, Public Relation on the ground of his having crossed the age limit of 40 years. He has also prayed that the respondents be restrained from acting upon the selection made against the posts of Assistant Director in the year 1981. It has further been prayed that the respondents be directed to treat the petitioner as eligible. A prayer has also been made that if appointments are made during the pendency of the writ petition on the basis of the impugned selections, appropriate directions may be given for quashing of the appointment orders.
2. Petitioner joined the Government service as Proof Reader in the year 1964 in the Directorate of Public Relations, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur. He was promoted as Assistant Public Relation Officer in the year 1970 and then as Public Relation Officer in the year 1976. In 1978, he has been selected for the post of Public Relation Officer by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Two posts of Assistant Director, Public Relations were advertised by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in the year 1978 vide advertisement No. 9/78-79. This advertisement appeared in the daily news-paper Rastra-doot dated 11.11.1978. The last date fixed for submission of the application was 14.12.1978. The minimum age required for recruitment to the post of Assistant Director was given out as 21 years and the maximum age as 35 years. In case of Government servants who were holding the post after regular selection, the upper age limit was relaxed by 5 years. The petitioner's date of birth being 14.1.1939 he was within age limit. He made an application to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for being considered for appointment on the post of Assistant Director in pursuance of the Advertisement No. 9/78-79. A communication dated 8.12.1979 was sent to the petitioner calling upon him to appear before the Rajasthan Public Service Com- mission on 24.12.1979. However, the said interviews were not held and no recruitment was made by the Commission. Subsequently, the Government of Rajasthan conveyed another requisition to the Commission for 3 posts of Assistant Director, Public Relations. The Commission issued advertisement No. 10/81. This advertisement was published in the Rajasthan Patrika dated 20th November 1980. Last date for submission of application was 16.12.1980. Petitioner again applied in pursuance of this advertisement. However, this time by a communication dated 17.2.1981, the Commission informed the petitioner that his application has been rejected because he has crossed the age limit of 40 years as on 1.1.1981. Petitioner made a representation to the Commission and also to the Director, Public ]Relations pointing out that he was within age limit when the post of Assistant Director had been advertised in the year 1978. No recruitment has been made in pursuance of the advertisement of 1978 and now without any justification he was being treated ineligible. According to the petitioner, without consideration of his candidature, the Commission proceeded to hold interviews in the month of May, 1981. Ultimately, on the basis of selection made by the Com- mission, the respondents No. 3 to 5 were appointed as Assistant Directors. Petitioner has prayed that the selection be quashed and the respondents be directed to consider his case for appointment as Assistant Director.
3. In reply to the writ petition, respondent No. 1 has stated that the inter-views which were scheduled to be held on 24.12.1979 were cancelled and all candidates were informed and the fees was also returned by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The posts were again advertised, but since the petitioner had crossed the upper age limit, the Commission had rejected his candidature. In accordance with the provisions of the Rules, the petitioner was required to fulfil the req
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
