Back
2017 Supreme(Raj) 1391
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Mohammed Niem Qureshi, S/o Shri Abdul Latif Qureshi - Petitioner
Vs.
Rajasthan High Court Through Its Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.) & Ors. - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6313 of 2017
Decided On : 12-12-2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Usman Ghani.
For the Respondents: Mr. K.D.S. Charan.
Age relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right and is within the domain of the employer concerned to decide in which category of service the benefit of age relaxation is to be provided.
Headnote:
AGE RELAXATION - RAJASTHAN SUBORDINATE COURTS MINISTERIAL ESTABLISHMENT RULES, 1986 - RULE 9 - AGE LIMIT - NO AGE RELAXATION FOR NON-RECRUITMENT YEARS - NO PARITY WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS OR CATEGORIES OF SERVICE.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought age relaxation in the upper age limit for the post of Stenographer under the recruitment process initiated by the Rajasthan High Court. The petitioner relied on Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986, and the Amendment to Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Ministerial and Subordinate Service) Rules and Regulations, 1999, which provides for age relaxation up to three years in case no recruitment is held in a particular year.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to age relaxation as the benefit of age relaxation under the Notification dated 23.09.2008 was not applicable to the vacancies to be filled under the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986. The court also held that the petitioner could not claim parity with other departments or categories of service as the State Government had not provided for age relaxation in the Rules of 1989 looking to the requirement of service in the police department.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to age relaxation in the upper age limit for the post of Stenographer under the recruitment process initiated by the Rajasthan High Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to age relaxation as the benefit of age relaxation under the Notification dated 23.09.2008 was not applicable to the vacancies to be filled under the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986. The court also held that the petitioner could not claim parity with other departments or categories of service as the State Government had not provided for age relaxation in the Rules of 1989 looking to the requirement of service in the police department.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition.
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred with the following prayers :—
“(a) Writ Petition may kindly be allowed with cost; and;
(b) impugned orders dated 12.05.2017 (Annexure P/7) and communication/order dated 27.03.2017 (Annexure P/6) may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondent may kindly be directed to return/take back the fee amount so returned by them from the petitioner and treat his form complete and proper and with proper fee and candidature as eligible candidate and allow him to appear in the competitive examination for the post of Stenographer under the recruitment process initiated by the Annexure P/1.
(c) During pendency of the writ petition, petitioner may kindly be allowed to appear in the Examination for the Post of Stenographer, which are presently scheduled to be held on 29.05.2017.
(d) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction and or any alternative relief which is consider just and proper may kindly be passed looking to the facts and circumstances of this case in favour of the petitioner.”
2. The petitioner is obviously seeking age relaxation in the upper age limit.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents has cited the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court in Hanuman Puri v. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3479/2017 decided on 25.05.2017), wherein the following order was passed:
“All the abovementioned writ petitions shall stand decided by this common order as the issue involved is identical.
The prayer herein is to consider the candidature of the petitioner while providing age relaxation of non-recruitment year 2015 and 2016 in the ongoing selection process on the post of Lower Division Clerk/Stenographer Gr.II advertised vide Notification dated 18.02.2017
For convenience, the facts are being taken from SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3479/2017.
Two separate advertisements for direct recruitment to the post of Lower Division Clerk and Stenographer in District Courts and District Legal Service Authority were issued on 18.02.2017 under the provisions of Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1986”). The upper age limit in the said advertisement has been prescribed as 35 years for General candidates and a concession of 5 years has been provided to OBC Candidates i.e. the category to which the petitioner belongs.
While praying for the said relief, reliance was placed on Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 to contend that each District Judge has to fill up the vacancies every year. Reliance is also placed on the Amendment of the last proviso to Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Ministerial and Subordinate Service) Rules and Regulations, 1999, vide which the age relaxation is given upto the maximum of three years, in case no recruitment is held in a particular year.
Reply has been filed by the respondents.
The sole ground for seeking the relaxation by the petitioners is the Notification dated 23.09.2008 which prescribes for relaxation to be granted in favour of the candidates for the year no recruitment has been made.
The Rules of 1986 have been framed in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution for regulating appointments to the Ministerial Establishment of the Courts subordinate to the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. Rule 9 of the Rules of 1986 provides for age of a candidate applying for direct recruitment as under :—
“9. Age:- A candidate for direct recruitment to any cadre must have attained the age of 18 years and must not have attained the age of 35 years on the last date fixed for submission of the application. Provided that :
(i) the upper age limit shall be relaxed by 5 years in the case of a member of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.
(ii) the upper age limit shall be relaxed by 5 years in case
