The High Court cannot direct the RPSC to grant age relaxation to candidates who applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police and were eligible to participate in the selection process between 2007 and 2010.

1. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 26.08.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in SBCWP No.7824/2012 and in other connected writ petitions, whereby the learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petitions, has directed the appellant-RPSC to grant the benefit of relaxation in upper age limit up to the period of three years to the writ petitioners and consider their candidature for recruitment on the post of Sub Inspector in Rajasthan Police under Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (for short 'the Rules of 1989' hereinafter) for the selections held for the vacancies advertised in the year 2010. However, the learned Single Judge has restricted the said benefit up to those candidates only, who have approached the Court within time and in whose cases, this Court has passed the interim for participation in the interview.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, vide advertisement dated 25.11.2010, had invited applications for the post of Sub Inspector of Police from the eligible candidates for their appearance in Sub Inspector of Police Combined Competitive Examination-2010. In pursuance of the said advertisement, the respondent-petitioner had applied and was allowed to appear in the written examination held on 25.05.2011. It is claimed by the respondent-petitioner that after clearing the written examination, he also undertook physical test, in which, he was declared successful and qualified for interview, however, he was not called for interview on the ground that he has crossed the maximum age limit of 23 years as prescribed in the advertisement in pursuance to the provisions of Rules of 1989.

3. The respondent-petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition before this Court and prayed that he should be granted relaxation of three years in the maximum age as has been provided in the other service Rules of the State because the appellants have not advertised vacancies every year and advertised the vacancies after a period of three years. It is also claimed that the respondent-petitioner is entitled to get the relaxation of three years in upper age limit as per Rule 11(3) of Rules of 1989.

4. The learned Single Judge, vide impugned order dated 26.08.2013, has allowed the writ petition preferred by the respondent-petitioner along with other writ petitions and held that since the State Government vide notification dated 23.09.2008 has provided age relaxation of three years in the upper age limit in 72 other Service Rules by inserting a new provision to the said rules to the effect that 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 three years, its action of denying the same benefit to the candidates, who had applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police, is discriminatory and directed to grant age relaxation in the upper age limit up to three years to the candidates, who were eligible to participate in the selection process in between the years 2007 to 2010 and consider their cases for appointment on the post of Sub Inspector of Police as per their performance in the interview.

5. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, being aggrieved with the aforesaid directions of the learned Single Judge, has preferred this appeal.

6. Learned Senior Counsel Mr J.P.Joshi assisted by Mr Siddharth Joshi appearing on behalf of the appellant-RPSC has argued that the directions given by the learned Single Judge to grant age relaxation to the respondent-petitioner are erroneous for the reason that it is settled law that no mandamus can be issued either to enact a rule in a particular manner or to enact rule by assuming the powers of rule making authority. It is contended that if the rule making authority decided to grant benefit of age relaxation vide its notification d