A physically handicapped person is not entitled to the cumulative benefit of relaxation clauses in the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971. The failure of the competent authority to determine vacancies or to advertise the vacancies for regular selection cannot be used as a basis for denying eligibility to those who are eligible in a particular year but becomes ineligible on account of absence of determination of vacancies on yearly basis and initiation of the process of recruitment in the relevant year.

Headnote:
RAJASTHAN EDUCATIONAL SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES, 1971 - RULE 10 - AGE LIMIT - RELAXATION - PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED PERSONS - ENTITLEMENT TO CUMULATIVE BENEFIT OF RELAXATION CLAUSES - NOT PERMISSIBLE - RELAXATION IN UPPER AGE LIMIT - BEYOND WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN PRESCRIBED IN THE RULES - NOT PERMISSIBLE - FAILURE OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE VACANCIES OR TO ADVERTISE THE VACANCIES FOR REGULAR SELECTION - CANNOT BE USED AS A BASIS FOR DENYING ELIGIBILITY TO THOSE WHO ARE ELIGIBLE IN A PARTICULAR YEAR BUT BECOMES INELIGIBLE ON ACCOUNT OF ABSENCE OF DETERMINATION OF VACANCIES ON YEARLY BASIS AND INITIATION OF THE PROCESS OF RECRUITMENT IN THE RELEVANT YEAR.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a physically handicapped person, was born on 27.12.47 and was substantively holding the post of a Teacher in the education department of the Government of Rajasthan. He applied for the post of school lecturer (Senior Teachers Hindi) advertised by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (R.P.S.C.) in 1989-90. However, his candidature was rejected on the ground that he had crossed the upper age limit of 40 years prescribed for substantive Government servants. The petitioner challenged the rejection of his candidature, arguing that he was entitled to the benefit of relaxation in the upper age limit as provided for physically handicapped persons.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of relaxation in the upper age limit as provided for physically handicapped persons, and that the R.P.S.C.'s rejection of his candidature on the ground of his having crossed the age limit was illegal. The court directed the R.P.S.C. to forward the petitioner's name to the competent authority for his appointment as School Lecturer (Hindi).
Issues: 1. Whether a physically handicapped person is entitled to the cumulative benefit of relaxation clauses in the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971. 2. Whether the failure of the competent authority to determine vacancies or to advertise the vacancies for regular selection can be used as a basis for denying eligibility to those who are eligible in a particular year but becomes ineligible on account of absence of determination of vacancies on yearly basis and initiation of the process of recruitment in the relevant year.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that a physically handicapped person is not entitled to the cumulative benefit of relaxation clauses in the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971. The court reasoned that granting cumulative benefit of relaxation clauses would lead to absurd results, such as a candidate who has crossed the age of 58 years claiming eligibility. 2. The court held that the failure of the competent authority to determine vacancies or to advertise the vacancies for regular selection cannot be used as a basis for denying eligibility to those who are eligible in a particular year but becomes ineligible on account of absence of determination of vacancies on yearly basis and initiation of the process of recruitment in the relevant year. The court reasoned that there is a statutory obligation on the competent authority to determine the vacancies for direct recruitment as well as by promotion, and that the competent authority cannot avoid this responsibility by sheer inaction or omission.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and directed the R.P.S.C. to forward the petitioner's name to the competent authority for his appointment as School Lecturer (Hindi).

JUDGMENT

1. -The petitioner, who is physically handicapped (orthopaedically handicapped) was born-on 27.12.47. He was substantively holding the post of a Teacher in the education department of the Government of Rajasthan when Rajasthan Public Service Commission (R.P.S.C.) issued an advertisement No. 6/89-90 for 334 posts of school lecturers (Senior Teachers Hindi) along with number of posts of school lecturers in other subjects. The petitioner submitted an application in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement. Although physically handicapped persons are not required to appear at the written examination and are directly called for interview, the petitioner was not called for interview on the ground that he is overage. An intimation dated 9.7.90 was sent to the petitioner by the R.P.S.C. rejecting his candidature on the ground that he has crossed the upper age limit. The petitioner submitted a representation to the R.P.S.C. but his representation was rejected by the Commission vide its letter dated 20.9.90. The petitioner then represented to the Government and stated that he may be given benefit of relaxation in the upper age limit as provided for in the case of physically handicapped persons.

2. In pursuance of the direction given by the court the petitioner was interviewed by the R.P.S.C. for the post of school lecturer (Hindi). Result of the interview was produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate in the court in a sealed cover. On opening the sealed cover it was revealed that the petitioner had secured 54 marks in the interview and thus he is a successful candidate, who is entitled to be appointed as school lecturer (Hindi).

3. The petitioner's case is that rejection of his candidature on the ground of his having crossed the upper age limit on 1.1.90 is wholly erroneous because vacancies for which the selections have been made relate to earlier years and for a number of years regular selection had not been made for the posts of school lecturers. It has also been argued by the petitioner that he has a right to get the benefit of higher upper age limit prescribed for physically handicapped persons. The R.P.S.C. has not at all considered his candidature in the category of physically handicapped persons. The petitioner has claimed that he is also entitled to the benefit of the upper age limit prescribed for substantive Government servants.

4. The R.P.S.C. has contested the writ petition by stating that even after granting the benefit of relaxation of age to the petitioner on the ground of his being a physically handicapped person, he was having the age of 42 years and 9 days on 1.1.90 and, therefore, he is not entitled to be considered as eligible. The petitioner has no right to claim two concessions i.e., being a Govt. servant and being a physically handicapped person. The R.P.S.C. has asserted that its decision of not calling the petitioner for selection is legally justified.

5. In support of the writ petition, Shri S.C. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner, in the first instance argued that as per the provisions contained in Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (for short 1971 Rules),the petitioner has a right to get the benefit of upper age limit of 40 years prescribed for substantive Government servants and also an additional benefit of 10 years relaxation on the ground of his being physically handicapped person. Shri Gupta made a reference to the various clauses of the advertisement and submitted that the relaxation clauses must not be read as alternative and if a person is entitled to more than one age relaxation, he should be extended the benefit of such relaxations. Shri Ashok Parihar, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the other hand argued that the relaxation provided in Rule 10 of 1971 rules can be claimed in either of the clauses and if cumulative benefit of relaxation clauses was to be given,extremely anomalous situation would arise. Shri Parihar placed reliance on the decisi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1992 Supreme(Raj) 838

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTG.S.Singhvi, J.Parmanand Sharma - AppellantVersusRajasthan Public Service Commission and another - RespondentS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 586 of 1991.Decided On : 25-08-1992

Login now and unlock premium legal research

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
G.S.Singhvi, J.
Parmanand Sharma - Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission and another - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 586 of 1991.
Decided On : 25-08-1992