Dismissed

Peeyush Gautam Son of Shri Brij Mohan Sharma v. Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan HC11 Feb 2019CW/27321/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging age limit in Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules for physically handicapped candidates rendered infructuous after Amendment Rules, 2018, introduced necessary age relaxation, correcting petitioner's grievance.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition and stay application disposed of as rendered infructuous due to amendment rules effective from 27.12.2018.

Peeyush Gautam Son of Shri Brij Mohan… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27321/2018

¶3

Peeyush Gautam Son Of Shri Brij Mohan Sharma, aged about 41 Years, Resident of 125, Brij Dham, Arjun Nagar, Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur through its Registrar General.

¶7

Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : None present.

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR

¶11

Order

¶12

11/02/2019

¶13

In this writ petition, the petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer that Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (for short ‘the Rules of 2010’) may be declared ultra vires, unconstitutional, discriminatory on the premise that State Government in all other similar Rules pertaining to different States Services has amended the relevant service rules by providing age relaxation of 10 years to physically handicapped persons following O.M. dated 29.12.2005 issued by the Ministry of Personnel and Training, Government of India whereas Rule 17 of the Rules of 2010 still continues to prescribe such age limit as 35 years.

¶14

During the process of receiving application forms for appointment on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) and

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CW-27321/2018]

¶17

Judicial Magistrate, Rule 17 of the Rules of 2010 has been

¶18

amended by Rajasthan Judicial Service (Amendment) Rules, 2018

¶19

vide notification dated 27.12.2018 in the following terms:-

¶20

“ 3. Amendment of rule 17. - In rule 17 of the

¶21

said rules,-

¶22

(i) for the existing expression “23 years”, the expression “21 years” shall be substituted;

¶23

(ii) for the existing expression “35 years”, the expression “40 years” shall be substituted;

¶24

(iii) the existing proviso (ii) shall be deleted;

¶25

(iv) after the existing proviso (v), the following new proviso (vi) shall be added, namely:-

¶26

“(vi) the upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed for persons with benchmark disabilities by,(a) 10 years for candidates belonging to General Category;

¶27

(b) 13 years for candidates belonging to Backward Classes and More Backward Classes; and

¶28

¶29

(v) after the proviso (vi) so added, the following explanation shall be added, namely:“Explanation: The relaxation in age will be admissible only in one category, mentioned in the proviso above.”

¶30

Last date for receipt of application forms was extended

¶31

from 05.01.2019 to 15.01.2019 and the Amended Rule 17 now effectively redresses grievances of the petitioner and any such online application submitted by the petitioner shall be considered by the respondents as valid application as the aforesaid Amended Rule 17 brings the petitioner within the age limit. However, this shall be the subject to scrutiny of the application of the petitioner by the respondents and if the application is found in conformity with the Amended Rule 17, the same shall be considered accordingly and he shall be permitted to appear in the written examination like any other candidate, who is covered by the Amended Rule 17 and has filed the online application.

¶32

(3 of 3)

¶33

[CW-27321/2018]

¶34

In view of above, the writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. It is made clear that if the petitioner has submitted online application before the last date in accordance with the Amended Rule 17, in that case, the respondents shall act on the online application of the petitioner or else proceed on the basis of his off line application.

¶35

Stay application also stands disposed of.

¶36

(GOVERDHAN BARDHAR),J

¶37

(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ),J

¶38

Manoj/21

Peeyush Gautam Son of Shri Brij Mohan Sharma v. Rajasthan High Court

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peeyush Gautam Son of Shri Brij Mohan Sharma v. Rajasthan High Court

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

Rohit Singh Son of Shri Fateh Singh, Vs the Rajasthan Housing Board, Jaipur

Mahendra Kumar Jatolia S/O Shiv Bhagwan Jatolia Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vivek Kumar Devesh S/O Kishan Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan through Its Principal Secretary

D.C. Rohilla Vs Bank of Baroda and Ors.

Shri Haneef Khan Vs Chief Manager Rsrtc and Anr.

M/S Sanwaria Sweets Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.