Dismissed

Sanjay Kumar S/O Shri Brij Mohan Goyal v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC13 Aug 2024CW/5204/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978. The court held the age calculation method is not ultra vires. Even with all relaxations, the petitioner remained over the maximum permissible age.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the age limit rule is dismissed. The stay application is disposed of.

Sanjay Kumar S/O Shri Brij Mohan Goyal Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:34404-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5204/2024

¶4

Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Brij Mohan Goyal, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Ward No 31 A, Near Azad Chowk, Mohalla Badabas, Kotputli, District Jaipur.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Home (Prosecution) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary.

¶9

Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Pathak, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yash Joshi, Adv., Mr. Pulkit Bhardwaj, Adv. for Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶13

Order

¶14

13/08/2024

¶15

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition inter alia challenging the Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Prosecution Subordinate Service Rules, 1978, more particularly, the provision therein where for determination of the age, first day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of applications, has been mentioned.

¶16

It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that after 2015, no vacancies were advertised for the post of Assistant

¶17

[2024:RJ-JP:34404-DB]

¶18

[CW-5204/2024]

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

Prosecuting Officer. It is contended that petitioner’s date of birth is 03.03.1976. He was eligible on 31.12.2020 as he belongs to the EWS category of the general caste and he is entitled to five years relaxation. It is argued that the maximum age for applying for the said post was 40 years as on 31.12.2020 and if five year period is added, petitioner was entitled for being considered for the appointment.

¶21

It is also contended that due to COVID-19, Government issued notifications wherein those who were eligible on 31.12.2020 were held eligible on 31.12.2024. It is also contended that since Rule-11 counts the date from the first day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of applications, petitioner has become ineligible as the age relaxation period of four years, which was given due to COVID-19 is now not available to him. It is contended that the Rule is discriminatory and is violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner as the petitioner cannot be blamed for in-action of the Government for not advertising the vacancies after 2015.

¶22

Counsel appearing for the respondent- State has opposed the appeal. It is contended that the relaxation was given only to those who were eligible on 31.12.2020 and they were considered eligible till 31.12.2024. It is argued that some cut-off date has to be provided and providing cut-off date may be not favourable for many candidates but the same cannot said to be violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner. It is also contended that for not advertising the vacancies, State has already given three years relaxation in the notification issued in this regard. It is argued that the petitioner is over age and the

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24

[2024:RJ-JP:34404-DB]

¶25

[CW-5204/2024]

¶26

notification cannot be said to be ultravires the Constitution, so as to change the date fixed by the State.

¶27

We have considered the contentions.

¶28

Rule-11 provides for the upper age limit which is to be calculated on first day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of applications and in all notifications which have been issued by the State under various service Rules, the same criteria is being adopted by the State and the same cannot be said to be ultravires of the Constitution merely because it is unfavourable to the petitioner. We do not find the Rule to be ultravires to the Constitution or violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioner as even after allowing five years relaxation to the petitioner as he belonged to the EWS category and even after giving three years relaxation for not advertising the post after 2015, still the petitioner is over-age.

¶29

We do not find any force in the present petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. Stay application stands disposed.

¶30

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶31

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶32

CHANDAN /5

Sanjay Kumar S/O Shri Brij Mohan Goyal v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar S/O Shri Brij Mohan Goyal v. the State of Rajasthan

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

State of Rajasthan Vs M/S. Boutique Hotels (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly M/S. Heritage Palaces and Sarais Limited)

Smt. Punam Soni D/O Shri Prabhuram Soni Vs Mahesh Chandra Soni S/O Bhagwati Prasad Soni

M/S Boutique Hotels (India) Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly M/S. Heritage Palaces and Sarais Limited) Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajveer Singh Yadav S/O Sh. Sanwaliya Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Chetna Rani Daughter of Madan Singh Rawat Vs Maharishi Dayanand University Ajmer through Its Registrar

M/S Shri Sharma Steeltech India Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Rajasthan