Petitioner sought consideration for age relaxation regarding appointment to PTI posts despite exceeding age limit. Court directed respondent to consider representation based on prior judgment noting 13-year recruitment gap.
Direction to respondents to consider petitioner's representation for age relaxation applying ratio of cited judgment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORDER
SB Civil Writ Petition No.4214/2012
Daulat Singh Rajput & anr versus RPSC & anr
8.5.2012
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI
Mr Kailash Katara – for petitioners
BY THE COURT:
It is stated that petitioner/s crossed the age limit provided for appointment to the post of PTI Gr II and Gr III.
Similar controversy came up before this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Bardiya & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Anr. - SBCWP No.8046/2008, decided on 18.8.2011 and, therein, referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of R.P.S.C., Ajmer Versus Smt. Anand Kanwar – Civil Appeal No.52 of 1993, decided on 8.2.1995, the petitioners therein were not held within the age for appointment to the post in reference though a direction for consideration of the representation for grant of age relaxation was given. It is submitted that case of the petitioner/s may be covered by the aforesaid judgment and accordingly a direction may be given for consideration of the representation in the light of the fact that for last 13 years, no recruitment to the post of PTI Gr II and Gr III has been undertaken.
2
In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider petitioner/s' representation in the light of the judgment in the case of Pawan Kumar Bardiya (supra) and taking note of the hardship and the last recruitment being in the year 1998, respondents are expected to take a proper view as indicated in the judgment referred to above. It is clarified that respondents will apply the ratio of the aforesaid judgment instead of going into the facts therein. The petitioner/s will, however, enclose the copy of the judgment supra while copy of this order is served on the respondents.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma
All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW
1 issue framed by the court
Whether petitioner's representation for age relaxation should be considered given the prolonged gap in recruitment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pawan Kumar Bardiya & Ors. Versus State of Rajasthan & Anr.Followed¶11
SBCWP No.8046/2008, decided on 18.8.2011
R.P.S.C., Ajmer Versus Smt. Anand KanwarReferred¶11
R.P.S.C., Ajmer Versus Smt. Anand Kanwar – Civil Appeal No.52 of 1993, decided on 8.2.1995
Daulat Singh Rajput
RPSC
MN BHANDARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
