Back
2020 Supreme(Raj) 506
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Dinesh Mehta, J.
Kundan Singh Charan - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S B Civil Writ Petition No. 7428 of 2019, 17817 of 2018
Decided On : 11-08-2020
Varsha Bissa, Advocate, Rajvendra Sarswat, Advocate, Kailash Choudhary, Advocate, Khet Singh, Advocate
The withdrawal of age relaxation in the advertisement for the recruitment of Assistant Jailor was not arbitrary and did not violate any vested rights of the petitioners.
Headnote:
RECRUITMENT - AGE RELAXATION - WITHDRAWAL - VALIDITY - RAJASTHAN JAIL SUBORDINATE SERVICE RULES, 1998 - RULE 49 - INTERPRETATION.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the corrigendum notification dated 8.7.2014, which revoked the age relaxation of 3 years granted in the advertisement for the recruitment of Assistant Jailor. The petitioners argued that the withdrawal of age relaxation was arbitrary and violated their vested rights.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the withdrawal of age relaxation was not arbitrary and did not violate any vested rights of the petitioners. The court found that the age relaxation was granted in the advertisement due to inadvertence and that the respondents realized their mistake and issued the corrigendum to correct it. The court also held that the petitioners had not challenged the corrigendum in a timely manner and that they had acquiesced to their ineligibility by taking part in the recruitment process despite knowing about the withdrawal of age relaxation.
Issues: 1. Whether the withdrawal of age relaxation was arbitrary and violated the petitioners' vested rights? 2. Whether the petitioners had challenged the corrigendum in a timely manner? 3. Whether the petitioners had acquiesced to their ineligibility by taking part in the recruitment process despite knowing about the withdrawal of age relaxation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the withdrawal of age relaxation was not arbitrary and did not violate any vested rights of the petitioners. The court found that the age relaxation was granted in the advertisement due to inadvertence and that the respondents realized their mistake and issued the corrigendum to correct it. 2. The court held that the petitioners had not challenged the corrigendum in a timely manner. The court found that the petitioners had knowledge of the withdrawal of age relaxation for years but did not challenge it until after they were not invited for the interview. 3. The court held that the petitioners had acquiesced to their ineligibility by taking part in the recruitment process despite knowing about the withdrawal of age relaxation. The court found that the petitioners had taken a conscious call to take part in the examinations and that they had not challenged the withdrawal of age relaxation until after they were not invited for the interview.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions.
JUDGMENT
Dinesh Mehta, J. - By way of these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents, particularly the corrigendum notification dated 8.7.2014, whereby the age relaxation of 3 years given in the advertisement No.1/2013-14 dated 2.5.2013 has been revoked.
2. Both the petitions involve almost identical facts, however, for the purpose of deciding the controversy, the facts of SBCWP No.7428/2019 (Kundan Singh Charan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) are being taken into account.
3. The respondent-commission issued an advertisement dated 2.5.2013 for filling up 42 posts of Assistant Jailor. Clause no.12 thereof stipulated that a relaxation of 3 years in upper age limit, would be granted. For the sake of convenience clause no.12 is reproduced hereunder:
img 1
4. The petitioner whose date of birth is 25.5.1982, was eligible by dint of age relaxation provided in the advertisement and thus, he submitted an application form.
5. On 8.7.2014, a corrigendum came to be issued, as a consequence whereof, the provision governing age relaxation given in Clause no.12 of the advertisement in question stood omitted.
6. It is not in dispute that written examinations pursuant to the advertisement in question were held on 15.3.2016, obviously after the corrigendum dated 8.7.2014 was issued.
7. Notwithstanding the corrigendum aforesaid (due to which petitioner became ineligible), petitioner appeared in the written examination and participated in subsequent process of selection.
8. Petitioner having succeeded in the physical efficiency test, qualified for the interview, but his candidature came to be rejected, considering him to be over age.
9. The petitioner preferred a writ petition being SBCWP No.3985/2017 before this Court in which, though an interim order was granted and petitioner was allowed to take part in the interview, however, since the marks secured by him (277.01) were below the cut-off declared for the category (282.43), his writ petition was not examined on merit and was disposed of as such on 22.1.2018.
10. The result was however reshuffled and the cut-off was reduced and persons having secured 275.50 marks or above were shown in waiting list. The petitioner, having secured 277 marks, felt that his cause has revived, for which he has approached the Court by way of instant petition.
11. Ms. Varsha Bissa, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents were not justified in taking away the benefit of age relaxation, which was granted in the advertisement dated 2.5.2013. According to her the corrigendum dated 8.7.2014 being arbitrary deserves to be quashed and set aside, as a right accrued and vested in petitioner's favour, cannot be taken away by the respondent-commission, that too, with retrospective effect.
12. It was also argued that withdrawal of age relaxation amounts to changing the rules of the game after the game has begun.
13. Learned counsel invited Court's attention towards Division Bench judgment dated 14.12.2017 rendered by Jaipur Bench in the case of Shahjad Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (DBCWP No.15619/2016) and submitted that in the case of recruitment of Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander, the State Government has decided to grant age relaxation of 3 years vide Government order dated 22.6.2017, duly noticed by the Division Bench in its judgment.
14. Learned counsel argued that the Home Department of the State has granted age relaxation in case of Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander, then, there cannot be any justification in not giving such age relaxation in case of present recruitment for the post of Assistant Jailor, which post too falls under the aegis of Home Department.
15. Mr. Sarswat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in SBCWP No.17817/2018 while adopting the arguments advanced by Ms. Bissa, additionally submitted that the respondents cannot discriminate and grant relaxation for one set of recruitment while completely denying the same for other set of recruitm
