Dismissed

Bhanwar Lal Solanki v. State

Rajasthan HC2 Apr 2009CW/4037/1995

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the validity of a 33-year maximum age limit for Junior Engineer appointments under Rajasthan Agriculture Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, seeking restoration of a 35-year limit. The Court dismissed the petition as an academic exercise after nearly 14 years, upholding the rule-making authority's decision to fix the age limit.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner not to be considered for appointment as Junior Engineer based on the restored age limit; prayer dismissed.

Bhanwar Lal Solanki Vs State — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4037/95
Bhanwar Lal Solanki (Dhanchi) vs. State &
Ors.

¶3

Date of order : 2/4/2009.

¶4

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

¶5

Shri Kinshuk Jain for the petitioner.
Shri Pradeep Kalwania, Addl. Govt. Counsel
for the respondents.

¶6

******

¶7

This writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner in the year 1995 challenging the
validity of column no.8 of item no.6 of
Section-III, to the Schedule appended to
Rajasthan Agriculture Subordinate Service
Rules, 1978 provided maximum age limit of 33
years for appointment on the post of Junior
Engineer with the prayer that the earlier
entry existing in that place which provided
35 years as the maximum age should be
directed to be restored and the petitioner
should be considered for appointment on the
post of Junior Engineer with effect from
27.6.1995 with consequential benefits.

¶8

The writ petition was filed at a time
when the petitioner was considered over age
for appointment on the post of Junior
Engineer in the selection that was made in

¶9

¶10

1995. The matter has remained pending for

¶11

almost 14 years before this Court. At this
distanceoftime,examiningthe
constitutional validity of the aforesaid
provision would be an academic exercise but
in any case what should be the upper age
limit for appointment on a particular post
has to be determined by the rule making
authority and when the respondents at that
time by taking conscious decision sought to
fix 33 years as the upper age limit, which
is in conformity with the various other
service rules, no fault therewith can be
found. The rule therefore does not suffer
from any legal infirmity, nor can the
competence of the respondents in prescribing
such a age limit, in the relevant rules can
be questioned.

¶12

I therefore do not find any merit in

¶13

this writ petition. The writ petition is
dismissed.

¶14

 (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.

¶15

RS/

Bhanwar Lal Solanki v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanwar Lal Solanki v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulab Chand Meena Vs State and Ors.

Heera Lal Damore Vs State and Ors.

Mohemmed Zahid Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Bhagirth Mal Vs State

Raj.Sahayak Karamchari Sangh Vs State

Ramnaeayan Vs State