Back
2011 Supreme(Raj) 532
[Citation : 2011(3) RLW 2520 (Raj.)]
(Rajasthan High Court)
Bhagwan Singh Rathore & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors. (Vyas, J.)
HON'BLE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS, J.
Bhagwan Singh Rathore & Anr.
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3506 of 2011 & 13 Others, decided on 25.05.2011
Tanwar Singh Rathore/Mr. M.R. Choudhary/R.S. Choudhary/B.B. Singh/T.S. Rathore/Dr. P.S. Bhati/Sukesh Bhati/Ashvini Swami/Narpat Singh/Devesh Bohra/Deepak Nehra/A.D. Charan, Advocates, Appearing on behalf of Petitioners in the Writ Petition;
Sandeep Bhandawat, Government Counsel
Headnote:Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957, Rule 273(3) and (4) — Age relaxation — No competitive examinations were conducted for the post of Patwari for last three years — Became over aged — Held — Competitive examination was required to be held every year u/Rule 273(3) — In the event of non-conducting of selection process in particular year, relaxation in maximum age should be given to the candidates who were eligible and did not get chance to compete due to non-advertisement of vacancies — On the analogy of the amendments made by the State Government in 72 Service Rules vide notification dated 23.9.2008, the petitioners entitled to age relaxation by three years. (Paras 19 to 23)
Writ petitions allowed.
jktLFkku Hkw jktLo ¼Hkw vfHkys[k½ fu;e] 1957] fu;e 273¼3½ ,oa ¼4½& vk;q esa f'kfFkyrk nsuk & fiNys rhu o"kksZa esa iVokjh ds in gsrq dksbZ izfr;ksxh ijh{kk vk;ksftr ugha gqbZ & vf/kd vk;q ds gks x;s & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & fu;e 273¼3½ ds rgr izfr;ksxh ijh{kk izfro"kZ vk;ksftr djuh pkfg;s Fkh & fdlh o"kZ fo'ks"k esa p;u izfØ;k 'kq: ugha djus dh n'kk esa mu vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vf/kdre vk;q esa f'kfFkyrk iznku dh tkuh pkfg;s] tks vgZad Fks vkSj fjä in foKkfir ugha djus ds dkj.k izfr;ksfxrk esa Hkkx ysus dk volj ugha feyk & jkT; ljdkj }kjk vf/klwpuk fnukad 23-9-2008 ds }kjk 72 fofHkUu lsok fu;eksa esa fd;s x;s la'kks/ku dh rtZ ij izkFkhZx.k Hkh vf/kdre vk;q esa rhu o"kZ dh f'kfFkyrk ikus ds gdnkj gSA ¼in la- 19 ls 23½
;kfpdk Lohdkj dhA
2. In all the above writ petitions, the petitioners are claiming age relaxation for their admission to the Patwar Training School as well as for appointment on the posts of Patwari after completion of training. As per facts of the case, the posts of Patwari can be filled in in accordance with the procedure laid down in the Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (for short, to be called hereinafter as “the Rules of 1957”).
3. As per Rule 4 of the Rules of 1957, there is provision for appointment on the posts of Patwari and as per Rule 4 (b), persons who have obtained Patwar School certificate shall be eligible for appointment as Patwari, Additional Patwari and Assistant Office Qanungo; meaning thereby, for appointment on the post of Patwari, the Patwar School certificate is necessary.
4. Under Rule 273, there is procedure provided for selection of candidates for admission to the Patwar Training School. Under sub-rule (3) of Rule 273, there is provision to hold competitive examination every year at all the district headquarters or at such other places as the Board may decide and age for admission is prescribed in Rule 273 (4) of the Rules of 1957. Under Rule 273 (4) (iii), relaxations in the age are provided.
5. The petitioners applied pursuant to the advertisement dated 07.03.2011 issued by the Board of Revenue for Rajasthan, Ajmer for admission to the Patwar Training School; but, due to crossing the maximum age limit the petitioners have become over-aged for admission to the training course as per advertisement Annex.-3 dated 07.03.2011. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are claiming age relaxation of three years in the maximum age limit of 30 years prescribed in the advertisement because since 2008 no competitive examinations were conducted for admission in the training course. The petitioners are claiming age relaxation on the following grounds :
A. As per the petitioners, respondent Board of Revenue is under obligation to conduct the competitive examination every year but no competitive examination for admission to the Patwar Training School has been conducted, so also, no appointment on the post of Patwari has been made for last three years. Argument of the petitioners in the writ petitions is that now after three years the respondent Board of Revenue has issued notification for conducting the competitive examination for admission in the Patwar Training School; but, in fact, admissions were to be made every year as per Rule 273 (3) of the Rules of 1957, therefore, the respondents are under lawful obligation to grant relaxation of three years in the upper age limit.
B. Learned counsel for the petitioners invited attention of this Court towards notification issued by the Department of Personnel, A/Group-II, Government of Rajasthan dated 23.09.2008 whereby the State Government granted age relaxation of three years by way of amendment in various service rules for the reason that direct recruitments on various posts were not made year-wise or in time and there was delay in filling up various posts by direct recruitment. Said notification has been filed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3520/2011. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there is no lack on the part of the petitioners who have become over-aged for the reason that Board of Revenue, Ajmer did not conduct competitive examination year-wise, therefore, the petitioners are claiming age relaxation of three years in the upper age limit of 30 years on the ground that the State Govt. itself made amendment in various services rules except in the Rules of 1957 for granting age relaxation of three years in maximum age prescribed. Main argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the a
