Rajasthan High Court Directs Review of Age Relaxation for SI Candidates

The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur has delivered a significant directive regarding the recruitment of Sub-Inspectors and Platoon Commanders, balancing the immediate procedural needs of candidates against the broader administrative authority of the State. In a case centered on the 2025 recruitment drive, the Court has instructed the Rajasthan State Government to reconsider the criteria for age relaxation, specifically for those affected by the lingering legal uncertainties of the 2021 recruitment examination.

The Backdrop of Uncertainty

The dispute arises from the persistent instability following the 2021 Sub-Inspector recruitment examination, which was mired in allegations of paper leaks, widespread malpractice, and deep-seated corruption within the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC). The recruitment process for 2021 remains, in the words of the Court, "in limbo," with various legal challenges pending before appellate bodies and the Supreme Court.

Petitioner Suraj Mal Meena, alongside other aspirants, challenged the advertisement issued on July 17, 2025, which excluded candidates like them from receiving necessary age relaxation. These candidates argued that the failures in the 2021 process should not unfairly penalize them by excluding them from future opportunities due to age limits.

Legal Questions and Arguments

The primary question before Justice Ashok Kumar Jain was whether the State is obligated to grant age relaxation to candidates whose previous recruitment attempts were derailed by systemic irregularities.

The petitioners contended that they were victims of an unfair process and demanded a corrigendum granting age relaxation to accommodate the time lost. Conversely, the State, represented by the Additional Advocate General (AAG), maintained that while they acknowledge the hardship, the grant of age relaxation is a matter of executive policy and not an inherent right, citing precedents such as Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs. Mahendra Kumar and Dr. Ami Lal Bhat vs. State of Rajasthan .

The Court’s Reasoning

Justice Jain balanced the rigidity of law with the principles of equity. The Court noted that Rule 11 and Rule 46 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 , empowered the Administrative Department to exercise discretion in relaxation of age.

Touching upon the broader crisis of faith in public examinations—referencing global reporting from the BBC, The New York Times , and Al Jazeera—the Court highlighted the duty of the state to ensure the "integrity of the examination system." The Court emphasized that while it would not interfere with policy, the state had an obligation to address the specific hardship created by the 2021 recruitment scandal.

Key Observations

• "Recent events clearly indicate that the Government has lost its credibility in organizing public examination as it has measurably failed in implementing legal and procedural framework."
• "The recruitment conducted in pursuant to notification dated 03.02.2021 by RPSC is in limbo and facing a big legal hurdle. The Single Judge Bench of this Court has already terms the recruitment process as shame and bogus."
• "The candidates particularly youth and students have a right of fair chance as enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 read with Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
• " Rule 46 of Rules 1989 provides for age relaxation and the Administrative Department is duty bound to consider the issue of age relaxation, in considering the attaining circumstances."

Order and Implications

The Court disposed of the writ petitions with a set of final directives: 1. Mandatory Review: The State Government is directed to consider the age relaxation for candidates who appeared in the 2021 exam and reapplied for the 2025 recruitment within eight weeks. 2. Provisional Entry: RPSC is permitted to allow these candidates to appear in the 2025 examinations provisionally. 3. Right to Appeal: The Court clarified that this temporary relief does not create a permanent right, but should the government reject their plea for age relaxation, the candidates retain the right to approach the court again.

By allowing the examination process to continue while simultaneously forcing a government review of the age criteria, the Court has effectively put the onus on the administration to rectify the inequities created by the 2021 recruitment failures without halting the current public recruitment process.