Age relaxation for a reserved category is contingent upon the existence of reserved vacancies for that category; in the absence of such vacancies, candidates cannot claim relaxation to qualify as general category candidates.

Order

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with following prayers:-

“It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioners may kindly be allowed and :

(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned decision/action of the respondents in excluding the name of the petitioners from the list of candidates called for documents verification dated 01.04.2026 to 17.04.2026 (Annexure-9) on the ground of being overage, thereby quashing and setting aside the said list (Annex.-9) whereby the petitioners excluded from the same.

(ii) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to forthwith issue a fresh list of candidates to be called for the documents verification while including the name of the petitioners in the same, in pursuance of the advertisement dated 20.02.2025 (Annex.2) and to consider his candidature against the respective category, and thereafter to select and appoint the petitioner on the post of Technician-III (ITI)/Operator-III (ITI)/Plant Attendant-III (ITI), with all consequential benefits.

(iii) Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, just and proper, by which the petitioner may get complete justice may also kindly be passed.

(iv) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with exemplary costs.”

2. It is stated that the respondent-Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Limited issued an advertisement dated 20.02.2025 for common recruitment of Technician-III (ITI) and other posts. In the advertisement, different vacancies were shown for Non-TSP Areas and TSP Areas. Petitioners applied for TSP Area as ‘BC’ candidate and after completion of recruitment process secured 67.25, 55.5 and 48.75 marks respectively.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were not considered for TSP Areas only on account of the fact that reservation for ‘BC’ candidates was not provided for the vacancies of TSP Areas. Learned counsel submits that even if, the petitioners are not considered to be a candidate of ‘BC’ category, in that case, the petitioners have got legitimate right to claim vacancy of ‘General’ category candidate. Learned counsel for the petitioners indicate that in reply to the writ petition, respondents have disclosed that cut off marks for ‘General’ category candidate in TSP Area are 45.25 and since, the petitioners have secured more marks then the cut off marks declared by respondents for the vacancy of TSP Area, therefore, the petitioners have got right to claim of appointment, yet the respondents have wrongfully excluded the petitioners from the process.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Deepika Kunwar Chundawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.31/2024) decided on 26.05.2025.

5. The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents by way of filing reply and has submitted that the petitioners have approached this Court with distorted and incomplete facts. Correct facts are that even the advertisement was quite clear that no vacancy has been reserved for ‘BC’ category in TSP Areas. Despite that, the petitioners submitted application for TSP Areas, applied in ‘BC’ category.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that even if, the contention of the petitioners is taken at its face value that in the eventuality of there being no reserved vacancy for ‘BC’ in TSP Areas, the petitioners can be treated as Unreserved (‘General’ category candidates), even then, the petitioners were not eligible for the reasons that the petitioners have crossed the maximum permissible age of 30 years and since, there was no vacancy reserved for ‘BC’ in TSP Areas, therefore, the relaxation of 5 years, otherwise admissible to the candidates of ‘BC’ category, was not available to the petitioners. Hence, on account of being age barred, the petitioner