Rajasthan HC: Age Calculated on Appointment Date Per RSR When Specific Post Rules Absent; Termination Upheld - 2025-05-31

Rajasthan High Court Upholds Ward Boy's Termination: Age Calculated on Appointment Date Under General Rules in Absence of Specific Post Rules

Jodhpur, Rajasthan – The High Court of Rajasthan (Jodhpur Bench), in a significant ruling on service law, has dismissed a second appeal filed by Mumtaj Khan , upholding his termination from the post of Ward Boy in the Ayurvedic Department due to being over the prescribed age limit at the time of his appointment in 1987. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yogendra KumarPurohit , delivering the judgment on May 30, 2025, clarified that in the absence of specific recruitment rules for a particular post, the general provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules (RSR) concerning age limit would apply, and age is to be reckoned as on the date of appointment.

The case, S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 65/1998, saw the court affirm the decisions of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Udaipur (06-02-1995) and the Additional District Judge No. 3, Udaipur (08-09-1997), which had found Khan 's termination valid.

Case Background

Mumtaj Khan , the appellant, was registered with the Employment Exchange since August 8, 1975. He was interviewed for the post of Ward Boy on June 25, 1987, received an appointment order dated July 1, 1987, and joined duty on July 10, 1987, at the Government Ayurvedic Hospital, Karakala. However, he was terminated from service on December 12, 1987, on the grounds that he was over the maximum age limit prescribed for the appointment.

Khan challenged this termination, eventually leading to this second appeal. His date of birth was undisputed: January 25, 1956.

Arguments Presented

Appellant's Contentions ( Mumtaj Khan ): * Argued that the Rajasthan Class IV Services (Recruitment and other service conditions) Rules, 1963 (hereinafter "Rules, 1963") should govern his appointment. * Claimed his age should be considered as of July 1986 (when names were sought from the Employment Exchange) or January 1, 1987 (the first day of the year following the initiation of the recruitment process), by which dates he would have been within the age limit of 31 years. * Contended that even if considered over-age, he was entitled to age relaxation under the proviso to Rule 9 of the Rules, 1963. * Highlighted that he had been registered with the Employment Exchange for 11 years without being offered an appointment, implying departmental delay.

Respondents' Contentions (District Ayurved Officer & State of Rajasthan): * Maintained that the Rules, 1963 were not applicable as the post of Ward Boy/ Paricharak in the Ayurvedic Department was not included in the schedule of posts covered by these rules. * Stated that no specific recruitment rules existed for the said post at the relevant time. * Therefore, the general Rajasthan Service Rules (RSR), specifically Rule 8(1) (as it then stood), would apply for determining the age limit, which was 31 years, to be reckoned on the date of appointment. * Asserted that Khan was over 31 years of age on July 1, 1987 (his appointment date) and his termination was a corrective measure after this error was discovered when his salary bill was processed.

Court's Analysis and Findings

Justice Purohit meticulously examined the applicability of the Rules, 1963. The court noted that the appellant had raised the plea of applicability of Rules, 1963 for the first time in the second appeal.

Non-Applicability of Rules, 1963: The court found that the appointment letter issued to Khan did not specify that the recruitment was being made under the Rules, 1963. Crucially, an examination of Rules 4 and 5, read with Schedule I of the Rules, 1963, revealed that the post of ' Paricharak ' or 'Ward Boy' in an Ayurvedic hospital was not listed. The judgment stated: > "fu;e 1963 mUgha ekeyksa esa HkrhZ izfØ;k ds fy, ykxw gkasxs tks in schedule Ist esa crk, x, gSaA schedule Ist esa Øe la[;k 3 esa ifjpkjd ;k okMZ ckW; 'kCn dk mYys[k ugha gS..." > (Translation: "Rules, 1963 will apply for the recruitment process only in those cases where the posts are mentioned in Schedule I. The term Paricharak or Ward Boy is not mentioned under item number 3 of Schedule I...")

The court further noted the explanation to Schedule I, which excluded posts like 'Lab Boy', reinforcing that the appellant's post was not covered.

Reference to UPARC Report: The judgment also referred to the report of the Upgradation and Pay Anomalies Redressal Committee (UPARC), dated July 8, 2013. The UPARC report indicated that: * No posts of Ward Boy existed in Ayurvedic Hospitals, only in Ayurvedic Colleges (requiring literacy, recruited via Employment Exchange). * Service rules for ' Ayurved Paricharak ' were under consideration by the State Government. * There was no defined recruitment procedure or assigned duties for ' Paricharak ' as it was not included in any service rules.

Application of Rajasthan Service Rules (RSR): Given that the Rules, 1963 were inapplicable and no specific service rules governed the post of Paricharak /Ward Boy, the court concluded that the general provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules would apply. > "tc lsok fu;e ugha cus gq, gSa vkSj HkrhZ izfØ;k ds fy, Hkh dksbZ fu;e ugha cuk gqvk gS] ml voLFkk esa jktLFkku lsok fu;e ds tks tujy fu;e gaS] os gh vihykFkhZ ds ekeys eas ykxw gksaxs..." > (Translation: "When service rules are not framed, and no rules are framed for the recruitment process, in that situation, the general rules of the Rajasthan Service Rules will apply to the appellant's case...")

Under RSR Rule 8(1) (as it existed before the amendment of January 25, 1990), the maximum age limit for appointment was 31 years. The court affirmed that this age was to be reckoned on the date of appointment.

Appellant Found Over-Age: With Khan 's date of birth being January 25, 1956, and his appointment date being July 1, 1987, he was 31 years, 5 months, and 6 days old. Thus, he was over the prescribed age limit of 31 years on the date of his appointment, rendering the appointment irregular.

Decision on Substantial Questions of Law

The High Court addressed the five substantial questions of law framed in the appeal:

1. Date for reckoning age: The court held that age must be reckoned on the date of appointment as per RSR 8(1), not when names were invited from the Employment Exchange.

2. Non-determination of vacancies year-wise (Rule 7A(2) of Rules, 1963): Since Rules, 1963 were not applicable, this question did not aid the appellant.

3. Appointment despite being over-age (implying knowledge of non-determination of vacancies): The respondents had clarified that the over-age status was not known at the time of appointment and was an error discovered later.

4. Age relaxation under Proviso to Rule 9 of Rules, 1963: As Rules, 1963 were not applicable, the question of relaxation thereunder did not arise.

5. Non-filling of posts for 11 years: The court stated that mere registration with the Employment Exchange does not confer a right to appointment, and delay in recruitment cannot make a subsequent termination (for being over-age) illegal.

Final Judgment

Concluding that the decisions of the lower courts were legally sound, the High Court dismissed Mumtaj Khan 's second appeal, finding it devoid of merit. The termination order dated December 11, 1987, was thus upheld. The court directed the records to be returned to the subordinate courts.