Dismissed

Vishal Sharma v. R P S C Ajmer

Rajasthan HC6 Mar 2019CW/13207/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed multiple writ petitions challenging the rejection of candidates for College Lecturer posts due to age. The Court held that vacancies enhanced via Corrigendum were governed by the original advertisement's age criteria (1.7.2015), and petitioners did not meet the minimum age. Precedents relying on different statutory contexts were distinguished.

What the court decided

AI extract

Vishal Sharma Vs R P S C Ajmer — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 12608/2018

¶3

Arvind Singh Charan S/o Hinglaj Dan Charan, R/o Village Udasar Charanan, Post Kalyanpura, Tehsil Sardarshahar, District Churu, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

Connected With

¶9

S.B. Civil Writs No. 9399/2017

¶10

Gajanand S/o Shri Bajrang Lal, Resident Of Vpo Kolinda, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu Raj.

¶11

----Petitioner

¶12

Versus

¶13

1 State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, College Education Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur Raj.

¶14

2 The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer Raj..

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

S.B. Civil Writs No. 10309/2017

¶17

Ajeeta Bai Meena D/o Shri Bhagwan Sahay Meena, Resident Of Village Post Khandip, Tehsil Wazeerpur, District Sawaimadhopur Raj.

¶18

----Petitioner

¶19

Versus

¶20

1 State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, College Education, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur Raj.

¶21

2 The Commissioner, College Education, Srk Shiksha Sankul, J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur Raj.

¶22

3 The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer Raj.

¶23

----Respondents

¶24

S.B. Civil Writs No. 20542/2017

¶25

(2 of 11)

¶26

[CW-12608/2018]

¶27

Asha Meena D/o Ramkishore Meena, R/o Vpo Pundarpara, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa, Rajasthan

¶28

----Petitioner

¶29

Versus

¶30

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ghungroo Ghati, Ajmer

¶31

----Respondent

¶32

S.B. Civil Writs No. 13207/2018

¶33

Vishal Sharma S/o Niranjan Lal Sharma, R/o Behind Meena Dharamshala, Nayabas, District Alwar, Rajasthan

¶34

----Petitioner

¶35

Versus

¶36

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Ajmer

¶37

----Respondent

¶38

S.B. Civil Writs No. 14430/2018

¶39

Surekha Choudhary D/o Jagdish, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Near Sheetala Mata Temple, Veer Teja Colony, Manasar, Nagaur, Rajasthan

¶40

----Petitioner

¶41

Versus

¶42

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Ajmer

¶43

----Respondent

¶44

S.B. Civil Writs No. 23696/2018

¶45

Harish Chand Meena S/o Shri Puran Mal Meena, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Village Parasiya Ajmer Road, Madanganj, Kishangarh, Ajmer (Raj.)

¶46

----Petitioner

¶47

Versus

¶48

1 State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, College Education, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶49

2 The Commissioner, College Education, Srk Shiksha Sankul, J. L. N. Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶50

3 The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer (Raj.)

----Respondents

(3 of 11)

[CW-12608/2018]

S.B. Civil Writs No. 12421/2018

¶55

Rakesh Bokan S/o Ramphool Boken, aged about 24 years, R/o 67, Village and Post Harchandra, Tehsil and District Tonk, Rajasthan.

¶56

----Petitioner

¶57

Versus

¶58

The Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Ajmer

¶59

----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Jain, Mr. Ram Pratap Saini, Mr. Tanveer Ahamad For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pradeep Kalwaniya, Government Counsel, Mr. MF Baig

¶60

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶61

JUDGMENT

¶62

06/03/2019

¶63

All these petitions agitate a common question of law

¶64

and therefore, are being disposed by this common judgment,

¶65

where necessary facts of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20542/2017

¶66

– Asha Meena Versus RPSC will be adverted to.

¶67

The matter in issue pertains to appointments to the

¶68

post of College Lecturer in different subjects under the Rajasthan

¶69

Education Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1986 (hereafter ‘the

Rules of 1986’).

(4 of 11)

[CW-12608/2018]

Vide advertisement dated 12.1.2015, the respondent

¶74

RPSC invited applications for appointment to the post of College

¶75

Lecturers in various subjects under the Rules of 1986. As per

¶76

condition no. 2 of the advertisement aforesaid, the age of a

¶77

candidate was required to be minimum 21 years as on 1.7.2015

¶78

and maximum 35 years as on the aforesaid date.

¶79

All the petitioners admittedly do not reach 21 years as

¶80

on 1.7.2015. The petitioner Asha Meena, with reference to the

¶81

facts of whom the issue in these petitions is being addressed, was

¶82

born on 10.7.1994, and was 9 days short of 21 years as of 1.7.2015. Her’s as also of the other petitioners’ candidature for

¶83

being considered for appointment to the post of College Lecturer pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.1.2015 and Rule 10 of the

¶84

Rules of 1986 therefore came to be rejected. Hence these petitions.

¶85

Mr.Himanshu Jain appearing for the petitioner Asha

¶86

Meena submitted that the advertisement dated 12.1.2015 was

¶87

first amended by way of Corrigendum / Press Note dated 25.2.2015 and the last date for submission of applications was

¶88

(5 of 11)

¶89

[CW-12608/2018]

¶90

enhanced to 26.3.2015 from the earlier date i.e. 27.3.2015.

¶91

Further by other Corrigendums / Press Notes, the last date for

¶92

submission of applications pursuant to the advertisement dated

¶93

12.1.2015 was extended upto 31.3.2015. Subsequently by Corrigendum dated 15.10.2015 to the advertisement dated 12.1.2015, the number of posts of College Lecturers in the subject

¶94

of ABST was enhanced to 45 from 20 posts earlier advertised and

¶95

the last date for receipt of the applications was extended to

¶96

16.11.2015. Mr. Himanshu Jain submitted that the number of posts of College Lecturer (ABST) being substantially enhanced

¶97

from 20 to 45 vide Corrigendum dated 15.10.2015 moreso in contravention of Rule 16 of the Rules of 1986, it was wholly arbitrary to confine the 21 years minimum age as on 1.7.2015. He

¶98

submitted that as on 16.11.2015, the extended date for submission of applications, the petitioner had attained more than 21 years of age and therefore ought to have been considered to be eligible treating the minimum age requirement of 21 years as

¶99

of 1.7.2016 not 1.7.2015. Mr. Himanshu Jain has placed reliance

¶100

on the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of

¶101

(6 of 11)

¶102

[CW-12608/2018]

¶103

Harman Preet Singh Wadhwa & Ors. Versus State of Punjab & Ors.

¶104

reported in 2016 (2) S.C.T. 302 as also in the case of Kavita Rani

¶105

and Ors. Versus Haryana Staff Selection Commission reported in

¶106

2011 LIC 289 in support of his contentions.

¶107

Mr. RP Saini and Mr. Tanveer Ahamad appearing for the

¶108

petitioners in the connected petitions submitted that the vacancies

¶109

on the post of College Lecturer in various subjects enhanced by

¶110

the Corrigendum dated 15.10.2015 were vacancies of the

¶111

subsequent year, in respect of which the minimum age of 21 years prescribed under Rule 10 of the Rules of 1986 and in the advertisement dated 12.1.2015 as of 1.7.2015, ought to have been of the first of July of the subsequent year i.e. 1.7.2016.

¶112

They submitted that in the event the minimum age was so

¶113

reckoned, the petitioners albeit not 21 years of age as on 1.7.2015, had the requisite minimum age requirement as of 1.7.2016 and were therefore eligible to participate in the

¶114

recruitment process to the posts of Lecturer College Education in various subjects pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.1.2015, as amended by Corrigendums from time to time.

¶115

(7 of 11)

¶116

[CW-12608/2018]

¶117

Per contra, Mr. MF Baig and Mr. Pradeep Kalwaniya, GC,

¶118

appearing for the RPSC and State Government respectively

¶119

submitted that the issue of the petitioners being eligible for recruitment to the post of College Lectures in various subjects

¶120

pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.1.2015 has to be addressed in terms of conditions of the advertisement with regard

¶121

to the minimum age and Rule 10 of the Rules of 1986. They

¶122

submitted that under both the criteria above, candidates for being

¶123

considered for appointment as College Lecturers in various subjects had to be 21 years of age at the minimum as of 1.7.2015. The petitioners admittedly were not so. Counsel further submitted that the Rules of 1986 do provide for enhancing the

¶124

upper age limit in given situations but no rule even remotely

¶125

addresses the issue of lowering the minimum age limit, as sought by the petitioners. Counsel further submitted that in the petitions, as laid, it is not the case of the petitioners that the enhanced

¶126

vacancies under the Corrigendum dated 15.10.2015 to the advertisement dated 12.1.2015 related to the subsequent years.

¶127

They further submit that even otherwise the mere bald assertion

¶128

(8 of 11)

¶129

[CW-12608/2018]

¶130

on this count in the rejoinder is an after-thought and without

¶131

foundational factual support. The petitioners in the rejoinder also

¶132

cannot be allowed to set up a case different from that set up in the main petition. Counsel further submitted that admittedly the

¶133

initial advertisement for recruitment to the post of College Lecturers in various subjects was issued on 12.1.2015 provided

¶134

that the RPSC would be at liberty to enhance or reduce the number of vacancies advertised. The Corrigendum dated 15.10.2015 was issued in the context of the aforesaid discretion

¶135

vested in the RPSC.

¶136

Heard. Considered.

¶137

Condition no. 2 of the advertisement dated 12.1.2015

¶138

categorically provides that the candidates applying for

¶139

consideration to the posts of College Lecturer in various subjects

¶140

had to attain the age of 21 years on or before 1.7.2015. That condition is not under challenge before this Court. Similarly, Rule

¶141

10 of the Rules of 1986 also so provides. It would be appropriate

¶142

to also record that said Rule is not under challenge. I am of the

¶143

considered view that in this view of the matter the

¶144

(9 of 11)

¶145

[CW-12608/2018]

¶146

context of the condition of the advertisement dated 12.1.2015 and

¶147

Rule 10 of the Rules of 1986 the petitioners admittedly not having

¶148

attained the minimum age of 21 years of age as on 1.7.2015

¶149

cannot be considered for appointment on the said post.

¶150

Reliance by Mr. Himanshu Jain on the case of Harman

¶151

Preet Singh Wadhwa & Ors. (supra) as also in the case of Kavita

¶152

Rani and Ors. Versus Haryana Staff Selection Commission (supra) is in-apposite and of no avail as the said judgments have not been

¶153

rendered in the context of the statutory rule as to the date by which the minimum prescribed age was to be attained in the

¶154

context of a particular advertisement.

¶155

I am of the considered view that even otherwise the Corrigendum dated 15.10.2015 to the advertisement dated

¶156

12.1.2015 did not entail the variation of the conditions thereof

¶157

including that of minimum age by the notified date unless a provision therefor was specifically made. The Corrigendums to the advertisement dated 12.1.2015 made on 25.2.2015, 27.3.2015

¶158

and of 15.10.2015 when the number of vacancies to which

¶159

recruitment as College Lecturer in various subjects under the

¶160

(10 of 11) [CW-12608/2018]

¶161

Rules of 1986 was enhanced, did not vary the condition with

¶162

regard to the date by which the minimum age for participation in

¶163

the recruitment process was to be reckoned. It is also relevant to

¶164

note that the petitioners cannot take a new plea by way of a

¶165

rejoinder and their case has to be confined, as of necessity with reference to the rule of pleadings, to the one as set up at the time

¶166

of filing of the writ petition. Further there is no supporting material

¶167

on record of the petition placed by the petitioners to even prima

¶168

facie make out a case on this count. Mere bald assertion cannot be of any avail.

¶169

In the context of the aforesaid facts, I find no force in

¶170

the petitions. They are accordingly dismissed.

¶171

Consequent upon the dismissal of the writ petition, the

¶172

stay orders, where passed, in the writ petitions stand vacated. Resultantly the stay application as also the other applications connected with the writ petitions stand dismissed.

¶173

Registry is directed to place a copy of this judgment in

¶174

each connected file.

¶175

(ALOK SHARMA),J

¶176

(11 of 11) [CW-12608/2018]

¶177

Vishal Sharma v. R P S C Ajmer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Vishal Sharma v. R P S C Ajmer

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Indraj Meena S/O Shri Bhagu Ram Meena Vs State of Rajasthan

Gopal Lal Raiger S/O Sh. Kalyan Sahai Raiger Vs the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Virender Lamoriya S/O Shri Panne Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr Tarun Gaur S/O Shri Y.R. Gaur Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Kumar Meena S/O Bhanwar Lal Meena Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rakesh Bokan Vs R P S C Ajmer