SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Raj) 1503

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN MONGA, J.
Sayar Devi Spouse/o Hukmaram - Petitioner 
Versus 
State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Local Self Government and Anr. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11394 of 2019
Decided On : 02-04-2025


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Hemant Jain for Mr. Lokesh Mathur.
For the Respondents: Mr. Suniel Purohit.

The court established that age relaxation provisions in recruitment rules apply universally to all candidates, ensuring fairness in the selection process.

Headnote:

(A) Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Employees Service) Rules, 2012 - Recruitment process for Safai Employees - The petitioner’s appointment was canceled due to exceeding the maximum age limit and insufficient application fee - The court found that the petitioner was eligible for age relaxation as per the advertisement clause. (Paras 1-10)

(B) Recruitment - The principle of fairness in recruitment processes - The court emphasized that candidates should not be unfairly disadvantaged due to arbitrary interpretations of recruitment rules. (Paras 6-6.1)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner applied for the post of Safai Employee but was rejected for being overage and for not paying the full application fee. The petitioner argued that she was entitled to age relaxation based on previous advertisements.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the petitioner should receive the benefit of age relaxation and ordered her appointment to be reinstated.

Issues: The main issues were the interpretation of age limits and the application of age relaxation provisions in recruitment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the clause allowing age relaxation applied to all candidates, not just those previously unsuccessful, and that arbitrary interpretations of recruitment rules are impermissible.

Result: Petition allowed; order dated 29.03.2019 quashed.

Order :

(ARUN MONGA, J.)

1. Under challenge herein is an order dated 29.03.2019 (Annex.3), vide which, the candidature of the petitioner on the post of Safai Employee was rejected on the ground that petitioner was beyond the maximum age prescribed in the advertisement dated 13.04.2018.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents initiated a recruitment process for the post of Safa Employees in accordance with Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Employees Service) Rules, 2012 (for short the Rules of 2012 only) vide an advertisement dated 13.04.2018. Being eligible, petitioner submitted her application for the post of Safai Employee. On being found successful, she was issued appointment letter vide order dated 02.09.2018. However, vide order dated 29.03.2019 (Annex.3), respondent no.2 canceled the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that she is overage.

3. Relevant stand taken by the respondents in their reply is that petitioner filed the present writ petition against the order dated 29.03.2019, which terminated her services on the grounds of being overage for the post of Safai Karamchari and submitting false or contradictory information during the Committee’s review. The appointment order clearly stated in condition no. 3 that if any documents or facts submitted by the candidate were found to be false, the appointment would be cancelled without prior notice. The petitioner mentioned her date of birth as 01.07.1977 in her application and submitted a transfer certificate from Government Senior Secondary School, Shetrawa, Jodhpur, dated 10.11.1991, confirming the same date. However, according to the Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Karamchari Service) Rules, 2012, the candidate must not exceed the age of 35 years on the last date of submission of the application, with a 5-year age relaxation for SC/ST candidates. Based on the petitioner’s own submitted certificate, she does not meet the age limit criteria. Additionally, the petitioner applied under the OBC category but failed to submit the required application fee. As per the advertisement dated 13.04.2018, the fee was Rs.100, but the petitioner only submitted Rs.50, leading to her application being rejected for insufficient payment. When given an opportunity to explain the discrepancies, the petitioner could not provide a satisfactory explanation, resulting in the cancellation of her appointment. Therefore, the petition lacks merit and should be dismissed.

4. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and have gone through the case record as well as annexures appended therewith.

5. First and foremost, my attention has been to Clause-8 of the Advertisement, English translation of which, reads as under:-

“8. The Department of Local Self-Government had previously issued advertisement numbers 1/12 dated 25.05.12 and 2/12 dated 31.05.12 for the recruitment of sanitation workers. In municipalities where the recruitment process was completed but eligible candidates were not appointed, separate notifications have been issued by the department regarding the cancellation of the above-mentioned advertisements 1/12 dated 25.05.12 and 2/12 dated 31.05.12. The applications submitted in these municipalities in response to the above advertisements will be included in the new recruitment advertisement number 1/2018. The list of such candidates will be posted on the notice board of the concerned municipal body by 21.04.18, and these applicants will be considered within the prescribed age limit and their applications will be included in the recruitment process, with decisions made by the respective municipality.”

6. Having perused the aforesaid clause, I am unable to persuade myself with the triteness of the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that the aforesaid clause is applicable only to those candidates who were not successful in the selection process. To say the least, this argument is highly arbitrary, inasmuch as the entire selection process was scrapped, me

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top