Hon'ble MAHESHWARI, J.—By way of this intra-court appeal, the petitioner-appellant seeks to question the order dated 01.03.2012 passed in CWP No. 1494/2012 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court declined his prayer for relaxation of age in the recruitment in question and dismissed the writ petition.

2. The petitioner-appellant filed the writ petition aforesaid with reference to an advertisement dated 17.05.2011 as issued by the respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (‘the RPSC’) for holding combined competitive examination for recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerk (‘LDC’) under the Rajasthan Secretariat Ministerial Service Rules, 1970 (‘the Rules of 1970’) and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Ministerial and Subordinate Services) Rules and Regulations, 1999 (‘the Rules of 1999’). The petitioner-appellant referred to the fact that the maximum age for competing in the examination aforesaid was stated in the manner that a candidate should not be more than 35 years of age as on 01.01.2012 for the services under the RPSC and not more than 35 years of age as on 01.04.2012 under the Secretariat but, an age relaxation of maximum 3 years was provided in terms of the notification issued by the Government on 23.09.2008. The petitioner-appellant, with his date of birth as 07.06.1973, having completed 35 years of age on 07.06.2008, and not getting the benefit even under the aforesaid relaxation of 3 years for having completed the age of 38 years as on 07.06.2011, stated the grievance against the limited age relaxation allowed in the recruitment in question; and prayed for the following relief:-

“A) By an appropriate writ order or direction the respondents may be directed to provide age relaxation of 13 years under the advertisement dated 17/5/2011 for the posts of LDC’s and the respondents may be directed not to reject the candidature of the petitioner as being age-barred.”

3. The appellant contended in the writ petition that since after the year 1999, no vacancies were notified by the respondents for the aforesaid post of LDC under the Rules of 1970 and the Rules of 1999 and, in this period, a large number of candidates became overaged for none of their fault; and that appropriate age relaxation ought to be granted for the period elapsed when the respondents failed to carry out the requirements of the said Rules of 1970 and 1999 of yearly determination of vacancies and holding recruitments.

4. The learned Single Judge of this Court referred to the fact that 3 years’ age relaxation had been provided under the Rules and with reference to the ratio in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. vs. U.P. Public Service Commission & Ors. : (2006) 9 SCC 507 observed that the relaxation could be granted only as permissible under the rules and not beyond.

5. Questioning the order aforesaid, the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant has strenuously argued that the mandate of the law has been that the recruitment would be made every year; and when the respondents failed to carry out the requirement of yearly determination of vacancies and yearly recruitment, the candidates like the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer for the age bar that has come into operation only for inaction on the part of the respondents.

6. The learned counsel referred to Rule 13 of the Rules of 1999 and submitted that when the requirement had been of yearly determination of vacancies on first day of April every year, the provision whereby the age relaxation is limited only up to 3 years rather runs contrary to the scheme of the Rules. The learned counsel contended that the notification dated 23.09.2008 does not take care of the situation where a direct recruitment does not take place for more than 3 years; and in the present case, where the recruitment had not taken place since last 13 years, limiting the age relaxation to 3 years was wholly unjust and unfair. The learned counsel also referr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document