Petitioners, Home Guards, challenged the State's refusal of age relaxation for recruitment. With selection completed and no ability to rerun exams, the Court held the writ pet heavily. The Court dismissed the petitions as having become infructuous, leaving the validity of the rule for future litigation.
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 AT JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6315/2020
----Respondents
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
(2 of 3)
[CW-6315/2020]
Order
25/10/2021
The petitioners are Home Guards in the State of Rajasthan. They have challenged the action of the State in not granting age relaxation in their favour for the purpose of selection to the post of Constable, for which the State Government had issued advertisement.
On 06.11.2020, the Division Bench of this Court passed the following interim order:-
“Heard on the second stay petition.
Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby directed that subject to the condition that the petitioners have submitted online/offline application form after the date of notification, they shall be allowed to undertake the ongoing examination being conducted by the respondents for recruitment to the post of Police Constable (General). The result of the petitioners shall not be declared and will be kept in a sealed cover. This order shall not create any equity in favour of the petitioners and their right to selection shall remain subject to outcome of the writ petition.
The second stay petition is disposed of, accordingly.”
It is agreed position that none of the petitioners had filed their online or offline applications for selection. In that view of the matter, under order dated 06.11.2020, the petitioners could not participate in the written tests, which we are informed, were conducted between 06.11.2020 to 08.11.2020.
Learned Additional Advocate General stated that not only the written tests were conducted on the said dates, but results thereof were also declared followed by Physical Efficiency Test and Physical Standard Test. As a culmination of this exercise, the District-wise select list was also published and appointments were made.
(3 of 3)
[CW-6315/2020]
In view of the above position, no effective relief can now be granted to the petitioners at this belated stage. It is not possible to put the clock back and have parallel independent separate fresh selection process undertaken for the petitioners. Effectively, by efflux of time, the writ petition has become infructuous.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that the petitioners have challenged the Rule of the Sate Government, by which no age relaxation in favour of the Home Guards is granted. He, therefore, submitted that the petition should not be disposed of as having become infructuous since such an issue may arise again in future as well.
In our view, it is not possible to test the validity of the Rule or the policy in isolation without any consequential prayer possible to be granted. In the present case, as noted above, the entire selection process has been completed. No effective relief can be granted to the petitioners. We, therefore, refuse to undertake such exercise and leave it open to the petitioners to raise the same question in future, if fresh selection process is undertaken by the State Government. Disposal of the petition would not prevent the petitioners from raising identical issue in such proceedings.
The petition is disposed of accordingly.
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
(AKIL KURESHI),CJ
27-MohitTak/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition challenging the State rule denying age relaxation to Home Guards for requisition posts has become infructuous due to the lapse of time.
Whether the High Court can test the validity of the State rule in isolation after the selection process has been completed.
What relief is available to the petitioners who failed to apply after the interim order was passed.
Jagdish Ram
Shyam Sunder
Prema Ram
Laxman Singh
Pradeep Kumar Kumawat
Archit Tripathi
Akil Kureshi
Sandip Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
