The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a special appeal against the Single Judge's order. The court held that internal note-sheets cannot confer rights and rejected the claim for a 28-year age relaxation as non-mandatory, finding no mala fide in limiting relaxation to three years.
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.
[2023:RJ-JP:16934-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.118/2023
In
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6118/2015
Manvendra Sharma Son Of Shri Nanag Ram, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of A-39, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. R.C. Joshi, Advocate
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN
Order
11/05/2023
Heard on admission.
Learned counsel for the appellant argued that Ld. Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition without proper appreciation of the fact that the decision taken on notes and files at different level upto the Minister In-charge provided sufficient justification to support the claim of the appellant and any subsequent reexamination at the departmental level was only an attempt to misguide the concerned Minister, which resulted in issuance of illegal order confining age relaxation only upto three years. The next submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that under Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by
[2023:RJ-JP:16934-DB]
[SAW-118/2023]
(2 of 3)
Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1962, there exists provision for relaxation of age to the candidates in respect of those years where no recruitment was held and, therefore, the entire period during which selection could not be held is required to be excluded while considering the eligibility. The third submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the order is otherwise actuated by mala fide of respondent No.4.
Ld. Single Judge relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahadev & Others Versus Smt. Sovan Devi & Others, Civil Appeal No.5876/2022 as quoted in Para 38 of the impugned judgment has rightly held that interdepartmental communications are in the process of consideration for appropriate decision and cannot be relied upon as a basis to claim any right. In the present case, it is not in dispute that reliance is placed on the note-sheets and not on the orders. True it is that initially a decision on files and note sheets was taken to grant age relaxation as claimed by the appellant, upon further examination of the matter, it was decided to limit the benefit only upto three years and not beyond that. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to any relief resting his claims on note-sheets and against the order which was ultimately issued after a final decision was taken in the Department confining relaxation of age only for a limited period.
The other submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that as recruitment had not taken place for a period of 28 years, therefore, while considering age limit, the entire period of 28 years was liable to be excluded, cannot be accepted. On the date of application the age of the appellant, on the relevant date i.e.
[2023:RJ-JP:16934-DB]
[SAW-118/2023]
(3 of 3)
01.01.2012, was 43 years. Even if three years are added to the upper age limit, the appellant was much above the upper age limit. It has to be seen that the claim of relaxation of 28 years of age is based on the ground that recruitment had not taken place during this period. Even if recruitment had not taken place for long years, it cannot be claimed as of right that the relaxation of 28 years in age should be granted. There is nothing in the provision referred to by the appellant, which mandates that it is mandatory for the State to relax the age equal to the number of years during which recruitment was not held, in the present case it being 28 long years.
The submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the action of the respondents in limiting age relaxation to three years is actuated by mala fide on the part of respondent No.4, to say in the least, has no legs to stand. The note-sheets have been placed on record. It is not the appellant, who alone was picked up for any hostile discrimination. A policy decision was taken that maximum relaxation of age would be three years. This was made applicable to all the candidates and not only the appellant. Nothing has been pleaded in the writ petition that the whole exercise was only intended to exclude the appellant from selection and recruitment.
No case is made out warranting interference with the order passed by the Ld. Single Judge, therefore, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ Karan/6
3 issues framed by the court
Whether reliance on internal decision notes or note-sheets can form the basis of a claim for age relaxation in recruitment rules?
Whether the entire 28-year period of non-recruitment could be excluded from the age limit as a matter of right?
Whether limiting age relaxation to three years was actuated by mala fide against the appellant?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Mahadev & Others Versus Smt. Sovan Devi & Others, Civil Appeal No.5876/2022Relied on¶25
Mahadev & Others Versus Smt. Sovan Devi & Others, Civil Appeal No.5876/2022
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manvendra Sharma
State Of Rajasthan
The Director, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan
Shri Dinesh Kumar Jangid
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Anil Kumar Upman
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
