The High Court dismissed this writ petition directing the State to review its decision on age relaxation, relying on a recent precedent that such administrative discretion is not amenable to judicial review absent arbitrariness.
None granted; the writ petition was dismissed.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3014/2021
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. M F Baig for RPSC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Judgment
19/03/2021
The issue involved in the present writ petition also stands adjudicated by this Court in the case of Mukesh Choudhary & Ors. versus State Of Rajasthan & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2555/2021 and other connected writ petitions decided on 15.03.2021 wherein this Court has held as under:-
“I have considered the submissions.
Noticing the aforesaid facts, this Court finds that
while in the case of Shahjad Khan (supra), this Court
(2 of 3)
[CW-3014/2021]
made observations, however the Division Bench nowhere held that the relaxation as provided in other services under the notification dated 23.09.2008 has to be necessarily allowed in police services. Rules which are framed under Proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India relating to recruitment and other service conditions of Government employees are specific to the concerned requirement of department. The State has consciously left the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules from the schedule while issuing notification dated 23.09.2008. However, a special power has been given to the State Government to relax the age and experience as and when required.
Accordingly, the power under Rule 11(a) Proviso (3) of the Rules of 1989 lays down as under:-
“(3) however the upper age-limit mentioned above may be relaxed by three years in exceptional cases by appointing authority, after previous approval of Government.”
The said power is exclusively within the administrative domain of the appointing authority with prior approval of the State Government and judicial review relating to the exercise of such power is not available with this Court as the discretion while exercising such a power is exclusively administrative one.
It is only in cases where the judicial process is of such a nature which creates arbitrariness or discrimination between similarly situated persons that this Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article
(3 of 3)
[CW-3014/2021]
226 of the Constitution of India. On the anvil of the fundamental rights available to a citizen, such discriminatory order or arbitrary order may be set aside. However, a mandamus to the State Authorities to exercise discretionary power in a particular manner and to a particular extent is not available with this Court. In the present case, the appointing authority and in consultation with approval of the State has only granted two years age relaxation while exercising the power under Rule 11(a) proviso (3). The same cannot be said in any manner to be arbitrary.
Therefore, Keeping in view the scope as available with this Court, I do not find any ground to allow these writ petitions.
However, it is always open for the petitioners to approach the State Authorities for grant of age relaxation and if such discretion is exercised by the State, the same would apply to all the candidates including those who have not approached the Court.
Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed.”
In view of the above, this writ petition is also dismissed in the aforesaid terms.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
PCG/47
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise writ jurisdiction to direct the State to grant age relaxation under an administrative rule.
Whether the discretion to relax age limits under Rule 11(a) Proviso (3) Rules of 1989 is correctly exercised by the appointing authority.
Whether the restriction of age relaxation to two years instead of three constitutes an arbitrary order enforceable by a writ.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mukesh Choudhary & Ors. vs. State Of Rajasthan & Anr.Followed¶16
Mukesh Choudhary & Ors. versus State Of Rajasthan & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2555/2021
Shahjad Khan (supra)Distinguished¶19
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Jay Prakash Kaswan
Suresh Prasad Sen
State Of Rajasthan
Director General Of Police
Rajasthan Public Service Commission
Secretary, Department Of Personnel
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
