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
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
Cumulative age relaxation is impermissible under the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules, as each relaxation operates independently without aggregation unless expres....
The court affirmed that special age limits for specific categories, like Ex-Servicemen, cannot be combined with general relaxations, maintaining the prescribed upper age of 50 years.
The absence of specific provision for age relaxation for specially abled candidates in the Rules, 2018, at the time of advertisement and application, led to the dismissal of the petitioner's claim fo....
The court established that amendments to recruitment rules are prospective and do not affect ongoing selection processes unless explicitly stated.
Point of law: Schedule III of the Rules of 2010 prescribes specific time schedule for determination and notification of the actual number of existing and expected vacancies in each cadre as also for ....
Where applications are called for prescribing a particular date as last date for filing applications, eligibility of candidates shall have to be judged with reference to that date and that date alone....
The discretionary power of the appointing authority in granting age relaxation and the need for uniform eligibility criteria to avoid arbitrary selections.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.