Dismissed

Girish Chandra Bhatt v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC4 Oct 2018CW/13592/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed writ petitions seeking age relaxation for teachers applying under a 2018 Advertisement. The Court held that vacancies cannot be bifurcated year-wise and that established principles prevent claiming eligibility based on earlier years' age limits or non-recruitment. Petitioner Girish Chandra Bhatt was rejected as overage even if the plea was accepted.

What the court decided

AI extract

Girish Chandra Bhatt Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ No. 12348/2018

¶4

Anand Singh Rathore S/o Shri Gulab Singh Rathore, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village And Post Itandra Medtiyan Via Khod, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Secretary, Department Of Rural And Panchayati Raj, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶9

Director, Elementary Education, Education Department, Bikaner. Rajasthan.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Civil Writ No. 12876/2018

¶13

Sudheer Pandya S/o Shri Surya Shanker Pandya, Aged About 40 Years, Village Ghodiya, Post Sakani, Tehsil Aspur, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan

¶14

----Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶17

Secretary, Department Of Rural And Panchayati Raj, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶18

Director, Elementary Education, Education Department, Bikaner. Rajasthan.

¶19

----Respondent

¶20

¶21

S.B. Civil Writ No. 13592/2018

¶22

Girish Chandra Bhatt S/o Ramesh Chandra Bhati, Aged About 42 Years, V/p Nandod, Tehsil Sagwara, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

¶23

----Petitioner

¶24

Versus

¶25

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department of Rural & Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶26

Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Rajastha, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶27

¶28

Director, Elementary Education, Education Department, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶29

Director, Elementary Education, Education Department, Bikaner, Rajasthan. 4. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Parishad Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶30

----Respondent

¶31

S.B. Civil Writ No. 14603/2018

¶32

Jayesh Bhatt S/o Moti Lal Bhatt, Aged About 41 Years, R/o 8 Th Kumawat Colony, Behind Power House Savina Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶33

----Petitioner

¶34

Versus

¶35

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Rural And Panchayati Raj, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶36

Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan.

¶37

Director Elementary Education Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶38

Chief Executive Officer, Jila Parishad Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶39

District Establishment Committee, Through Its Chairman, Jila Parishad Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶40

----Respondents

¶41

¶42

_______________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Rathore. Mr. Mahaveer Singh. For Respondent(s): Mr. Dinesh Ojha for Mr. P.R. Singh, AAG.

¶43

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶44

Order

¶45

04/10/2018

¶46

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking benefit of age relaxation of a year while considering their candidature for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-2) pursuant to the Advertisement dated 31.07.2018, allow them to file offline/online application form, restraining the respondents from rejecting their candidature for the said post, accord appointment and to comply with the provisions of Rule 265(x) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (‘the Rules’).

¶47

It is, inter alia, submitted in the writ petition that the respondents issued Advertisement dated 31.07.2018 calling for online application forms for the post of Teacher GradeIII (Level-2). The petitioners possessing the requisite qualifications, were attracted towards the Advertisement. It is then indicated that the maximum age prescribed in the Advertisement is 40 years for General category candidates and the cut-off date has been indicated as 01.01.2019. It is also indicated that as on the cut-off date i.e. 01.01.2019,

¶48

¶49

the petitioners would be overage, but as on the date of Advertisement they are within the age limit.

¶50

It is, inter alia, submitted that the Advertisement dated 06.07.2016 was issued by the respondent-State for Rajasthan Primary and Upper Primary School Teachers Direct Recruitment, 2016 and for Level-2, the vacancies advertised were 6045, which is evident from Annex.-6, however, on account of judgment in Sher Singh & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors. v. State & Ors.: D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1464/2016 , decided on 27.04.2017 at Jaipur Bench, the Advertisement dated 06.07.2016 was cancelled and an amendment notification for recruitment 2016 was issued on 11.09.2017, wherein also, the posts advertised were 6045 and the cut-off date for the purpose of age was indicated as 01.01.2018, wherein the maximum age at the relevant time was 35 years and in terms of Rule 265(x) of the Rules, 3 years relaxation was granted.

¶51

It is submitted that in the Advertisement issued in the year 2018, though no recruitment was held in the year 2017, the respondents have wrongly refused to grant age relaxation in terms of Rule 265(x) of the Rules. It was submitted that merely because the cancelled recruitment of the year 2016 was re-advertised in the year 2017 with a changed cut-off date with the same number of vacancies, the same cannot be treated as recruitment in the previous

¶52

¶53

year so as not to grant of relaxation in terms of Rule 265(x) of the Rules.

¶54

Submissions have been made that though the petitioners have applied pursuant to the Advertisement dated 31.07.2018, they being overage on 01.01.2019, they have been rendered ineligible; the respondents have not provided for any age relaxation in terms of Rule 265(x) of the Rules, on the purported assumption that Advertisement was issued in 2017, wherein the cut-off date was 01.01.2018.

¶55

It is also submitted that in fact the Advertisement issued in 2017 pertained to the recruitment of the year 2016 with amendment in terms of the directions issued by this Court. Attention was drawn to the fact that there was no change insofar as the advertised vacancies were concerned i.e. 6045 in both the Advertisements Annex.-6 as well as Annex.-4.

¶56

It was emphasised that Rule 263 of the Rules requires yearwise determination of the vacancies and as in the present Advertisement, the respondents have advertised 9178 vacancies, they would include vacancies as on 01.04.2017 and 01.04.2018 and, therefore, qua the vacancies of 01.04.2017, the petitioners are entitled for grant of relaxation of one year in upper-age limit and if such relaxation is granted, the petitioners would fall within

¶57

¶58

the upper-age limit and, consequently, eligible for recruitment, however, the failure of the respondents in indicating vacancies for the year 2017 and provide age relaxation, has resulted in depriving the petitioners of their valuable right to apply and, therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard deserves to be set aside and the petitioners be held eligible in terms of the Advertisement. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, though failed to produce the yearwise vacancies despite the order passed by this Court, and also did not file any reply to the writ petitions, however, has made submissions on the merit of the writ petitions. It was submitted that there is no requirement for advertising the vacancies yearwise and provide for age relaxation qua each year based on the fact as to whether the notification had been issued for the said vacancies or not.

¶59

It was submitted that a plain reading of the provisions of Rules 263 and 265(x) of the Rules would reveal that it is only in case where no recruitment is held in any year, in the following recruitment the relaxation is required to be granted, however, as in the year 2017 Advertisement was issued, cut-off date was issued as on 01.01.2018 and the candidates therein were granted 3 years’ age relaxation, it cannot be said that no recruitment was held in the year 2017 so as to grant further age relaxation to the

¶60

¶61

petitioners. It is prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶62

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶63

The candidatewise status pertaining to their age and their eligibility would be reflected from the following table:-

¶64

Name of Pet.	Date of Birth	Age on 01.01.2018	Age on 01.01.2019
Anand Singh Rathore	02.04.1978	Above 39	Above 40
Sudheer Pandya	15.12.1978	Above 39	Above 40
Girish Chandra Bhatt	22.10.1976	Above 41	Above 42
Jayesh Bhatt	16.08.1978	Above 39	Above 40

¶65

A perusal of the above table would indicates that

¶66

insofar as the case of Girish Chandra Bhatt is concerned, even if the plea raised by the petitioners is accepted, he would be overage by all means and, therefore, the plea sought to be raised by the said petitioner has no substance.

¶67

Coming to the case of other petitioners, it would be necessary to notice at this stage that upper-age limit for recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade-III was 35 years, which is evident from notifications Annex.-6 and Annex.-4, however, the said age came to be amended by notification dated 06.03.2018 by the State, whereby the upper age limit of 35 years was substituted by 40 years.

¶68

The provision of Rule 265(x) of the Rules reads as under:-

¶69

“If a candidate would have been entitled in

¶70

¶71

respect of his/her age for direct recruitment in any year in which no such recruitment was held, he/she shall be deemed to be eligible in the next following recruitment, if he/she is not overage by more than 3 years.”

¶72

The above provision would reveal that the relaxation is required to be given, if a candidate would have been entitled in respect of his age for direct recruitment in any year, in which, no recruitment was held.

¶73

If the recruitment, for the year 2017 as claimed and assumed by the petitioner was held in the year 2017, the cut-off date would have been 01.01.2018 and the upperage limit as it then existed would have been 35 years only and as the Advertisement for the year was issued in the year 2016 and again amended notification was also in the year 2017 with age relaxation, as per table hereinabove the petitioners would have been overage as they were all above 39 years on 01.01.2018 and, therefore, the plea sought to be raised by the petitioners apparently has no substance based on the fact that as age has now been increased from 35 years to 40 years therefore, they have to be assumed retrospectively to be eligible in the year 2017 by assuming the upper age limit of 40 years in the said year as well. As such on the assumptions sought to be made by the petitioners pertaining to the year 2017, if the same is taken to its logical conclusion, the petitioners even otherwise would not be eligible.

¶74

¶75

A plain reading of provision pertaining to the relaxation of age would reveal that the same cannot be connected with the year, to which the vacancy pertains.

¶76

A bare look at the Advertisement and/or any other Advertisement for the previous years wherein a relaxation of 3 years was granted would indicate that the vacancies have not been advertised by bifurcating the same based on the year, to which the said vacancies pertain.

¶77

The issue involved herein was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission & Ors. v. Dr. Narendra Mohan & Ors.: (1994) 2 SCC 630, wherein it was held as under:-

¶78

“It is difficult to accept the contention of Shri Rao to adopt the chain system of recruitment by notifying each year’s vacancies and for recruitment of the candidates found eligible for the respective years. It would be fraught with grave consequences. It is settled law that the Government need not immediately notify vacancies as soon as they arose. It is open, as early as possible to inform the vacancies existing or anticipated to the PSC for recruitment and that every eligible person is entitled to apply for and to be considered of his claim for recruitment provided he satisfies the prescribed requisite qualifications. Pegging the recruitment in chain system would deprive all the eligible candidates as on date of inviting application for recruitment offending Articles 14 and 16.”

¶79

Similarly, in Union of India & Anr. v. Yogendra Singh :

¶80

1994 (Suppl.) 2 SCC 226 , it was laid down that the applicant must possess the requisite qualification as per the Advertisement even if the vacancies have arisen prior to the

¶81

¶82

date of Advertisement. It was, inter alia, laid down as

¶83

under:-

¶84

“No candidate who does not possess the currently prescribed qualification and he possess the qualification prescribed earlier, can be said to be qualified or have any vested right to appointment even against some earlier unfilled vacancies. Every candidate, who aspires to fill any vacancy, must possess the educational qualification that are then prescribed.

¶85

No candidate has a right to claim appointment as a matter of right though he has a right of being considered on the post being advertised for the reason that selection process gets initiated from the advertisement itself. Thus, the contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioner in this respect is rejected being preposterous.”

¶86

In view of the above principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that there is no necessity for notifying each years’ vacancy and to find out the eligibility for the respective years, the plea sought to be raised by the petitioners seeking to have different eligibility alongwith relaxation in age qua the vacancies of year 2017, cannot be countenanced.

¶87

In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, the same are, therefore, dismissed.

¶88

No order as to costs.

¶89

(ARUN BHANSALI), J.

¶90

PKS

Girish Chandra Bhatt v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Girish Chandra Bhatt v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Aarti Vs State of Rajasthan

Malu Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhulla Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Choudhary Vs the State of Rajasthan

Deepchand Vs State and Ors.

Bhupender Singh Inda Vs State of Rajasthan