IMPORTANT POINT
A candidate's eligibility cannot be negated by a subsequent amendment to the cut-off date if they were eligible under the original notification, as per the provisions of Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Subordinate Service Rules, 1977.

ORDER :

Dinesh Mehta, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the cut off date (01.01.2025), which the respondent – Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Board’) has fixed for the age limit of a candidate.

2. Inviting Court’s attention towards the backdrop facts, Mr. Hanuman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the recruitment Notification No. 2607 was issued on 06.10.2023, according to which, the candidates desirous of vying for the post of Animal Attendant were supposed to submit their online application form from 13.10.2023. He underscored that in said recruitment notification, the cut off date was fixed as 01.01.2024 for the purpose of determining the age of the candidates.

3. Learned counsel submitted that perhaps on account of assembly elections, the recruitment process was kept in abeyance and thereafter, by way of subsequent Notification No. 2710 dated 12.01.2024, a corrigendum in the form of amended advertisement was issued, in which the relevant date for the purpose of determining the age limit came to be altered to 01.01.2025 and the window for submitting the forms was opened between 19.01.2024 and 17.02.2024.

4. Informing that the petitioner’s date of birth is 19.06.1984, learned counsel submitted that as per the Notification initially issued (on 06.10.2023), the petitioner was well within the upper age ceiling and thus eligible/entitled to apply but as a consequence of the amended advertisement which was notified on 12.01.2024, the petitioner became ineligible, as the cut off date has been changed to 01.01.2025.

5. While maintaining that the subsequent Notification dated 12.01.2024 was only an amendment in the earlier notification, learned counsel argued that for whatever reasons, if the Board was required to extend the date of submitting application form, the cut off date could not have been altered and in any case the same could not have been altered in a way that the eligible candidates become ineligible.

6. Learned counsel further argued that the cut off date, which has been altered by the Board, is not in conformity with Clause (xv) of Rule 10 of The Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Subordinate Service Rules, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1977’), according to which, a person who was within the age limit as on 31.12.2020 was held to be within the age limit upto 31.12.2024.

7. Mr. Bhati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – Board firstly raised an objection that the petitioner has rushed to this Court without first submitting his application form. It was argued that the last date of submitting application form was 17.02.2024, whereas, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition on 14.02.2024, presuming that his application form will not be accepted and his candidature would be rejected. In other words, learned counsel argued that the petitioner ought to have submitted his application form and waited for the decision of the Board about his eligibility.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent – Board then joined the issue on merit and by inviting Court’s attention towards Rule 10 of the Rules of 1977 argued that as per the provision relating to the age limit, a candidate who has attained the age of 40 years on the first day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of application, shall be ineligible. He argued that since the last date of submitting application form has been shifted to 17.02.2024, naturally, the provision relating to upper age limit had to be modified or suitably changed. He emphasised that whatever the Board has done, has done in order to follow the mandate of the Rules of 1977. He, thus, submitted that since the date altered by the Board (01.01.2025) is in accordance with Rule 10 of the Rules of 1977, no fault can be found in the action of the Board.

9. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble The Supreme Court rendered in the case of Hirandra Kumar vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahaba