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) 2094

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SANDEEP TANEJA, JJ.
The State Of Rajasthan - Appellants
Versus
Dr. Ali Taqi S/o Irtiza Hussain - Respondent 
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1123 of 2024, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1109 of 2024, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1128 of 2024, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1105 of 2024
Decided on : 09-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Piyush Bhandari for Mr. Praveen Khandelwal, AAG
For the Respondent: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Ojha, Mr. Mahendra Thanvi, Mr. Suniel Purohit

Cumulative age relaxation is impermissible under the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules, as each relaxation operates independently without aggregation unless expressly provided.

Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules, 1973 - Article 309 of the Constitution of India - Cumulative age relaxation - The court held that age relaxations prescribed under Rule 9 operate independently without allowance for cumulative benefits. The stipulation in the advertisement prohibiting cumulative relaxation was consistent with statutory rules. (Paras 6.7, 7.10, 7.17)

(B) Judicial review - Courts cannot change recruitment conditions unless they conflict with statutory provisions - The advertisement conditions bind all candidates. (Para 7.15)

Facts of the case:
The appellants issued an advertisement for the recruitment of Unani Medical Officers, but respondents were excluded based on exceeding the age limit. They contested for cumulative age relaxation based on their previous service and OBC status.

Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition, but the appeal found that the Single Judge misinterpreted the statutory rules regarding age relaxation.

Issues: Whether cumulative age relaxation is permissible under the Rules and the validity of the advertisement's conditions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that Rule 9 mandates separate treatment of relaxations without aggregation, and specific stipulations in advertisements must be adhered to, affirming the importance of legislative intent in recruitment.

Result: Appeals allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.

1. At the outset, it is clarified that the present batch of special appeals arise from a similar set of facts and common issues emanating from the impugned order dated 21.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, it would be appropriate and in the interest of judicial propriety to adjudicate them analogously.

2. For the sake of convenience, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1128/2024 is treated as the lead case in the present adjudication. The decision rendered therein shall govern and apply mutatis mutandis also to the instant D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1123/2024, D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1109/2024 and D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1105/2024.

3. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1128/2024 has been preferred by the appellants under Rule 134 of the RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RULES , 1951, read with Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following reliefs:

“It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed, the impugned order of learned Single Judge dated 21.05.2024 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13771/2023 (Dr. Mohd. Sajid vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) may kindly be quashed and set aside and writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner may kindly be ordered to be dismissed with cost.

Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the appellants.”

4. The brief facts leading to the instant controversy are that the appellants issued Advertisement No. 04/2023 dated 13.07.2023, inviting applications for regular appointment by way of direct recruitment to 249 posts of Unani Medical Officers under the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1973’).

4.1 The respondents/writ petitioners were among the aspirants who had applied pursuant to the said advertisement. After the conduct of the selection process for the aforesaid posts, the appellants issued a provisional select list on 11.09.2023, followed by a final merit list on 22.09.2023, in respect of the advertised vacancies. In the said merit list, however, the candidature of the respondent/writ petitioners came to be excluded on the ground of them being over-aged.

4.2. Aggrieved thereby, the respondents approached this Court by preferring Civil Writ Petitions, wherein they inter alia pleaded that they were registered Unani Medical Practitioner, appointed under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), and have been continuously serving as temporary employees in the Medical and Health Department on the post of Unani Medical Officer. It was contended that by virtue of their service, they were entitled to age relaxation to the extent of the period of service rendered, subject to a maximum of 5 years, in terms of Clause 12 of the advertisement. In addition, being a member of the Other Backward Classes (Non-Creamy Layer), they were also entitled to relaxation under Rule 9(xi) of the Rules of 1973, as well as further relaxation under Rule 9(xii) of the said rules on account of non-holding of recruitment during the intervening years.

4.3. The case set up before the learned Single Judge was that the statutory framework under Rule 9 of the Rules of 1973, read with the Notification dated 23.09.2008, does not prohibit grant of cumulative relaxation. Therefore, the restrictive stipulation contained in the advertisement to the effect that the benefit of relaxation could not be availed cumulatively was de hors the Rules, and liable to be struck down.

4.4. The appellants, on the other hand, opposed the writ petition contending that the advertisement had been issued strictly in accordance with the applicable service rules, and that the age relaxation contemplated therein was intended to operate independently, without being cumulative. Reliance was placed on certain decisions of

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