Writ petition seeking three years' age relaxation for a Stenographer recruitment exam not held for over three years, under Rule 9(11) of the 1986 Rules. Court allowed the High Court administration to consider the petitioner's candidacy with relaxation; he stood at serial no. 31 in merit list.
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.
[2025:RJ-JP:32391-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3516/2020
Kapil Tiwari S/o Shri Satya Narain Tiwari, Aged About 39 Years, R/o H. No. 1/18, Swami Vivekanand Nagar, Kota.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : | Mr. Raghunandan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Adv. |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Kritika Rajawat, Adv. Mr. Ayush Bishnoi,Adv. |
||
| For Respondent(s) | : | Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Madhav Dadhich, Adv. |
| Mr. Vishnu Kant Sharma,Adv. |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT
Order
19/08/2025
Learned senior counsel appearing for the Rajasthan High Court has fairly stated that the petitioner’s claim for grant of age relaxation would come within the four corners of the Rules which governed the age relaxation provision. It is the case of the petitioner that he should be given three years age relaxation for consideration for participation in the examination and in terms of Rule 9 Sub Rule XI of Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules 1986’) which allows three years maximum age relaxation in cases where the examination has not been held for the years in consideration.
[2025:RJ-JP:32391-DB]
[CW-3516/2020]
(2 of 2)
Admittedly, for more than three years the selection process was not initiated for the post of Stenographer and therefore the benefit under Rule 9 Sub Rule XI of Rules 1986 would be available to the petitioner.
The petitioner has already participated in the selection process and it is informed that he stands at Serial No.31 in the merit list. The Rajasthan High Court has also provided the position of vacancies and post available with the Court which reflects that the vacancies are available for considering the candidature of the petitioner.
We therefore allow the Rajasthan High Court Administration to consider the candidature of the petitioner by granting adequate age relaxation in terms of aforesaid Rules and consider his case for appointment on the post of Stenographer, if he is otherwise found suitable. The petitioner if so considered and appointed would be entitled for notional benefits from the date others were appointed and actual benefits from the date he is appointed.
With the aforesaid observations, the present civil writ petition is allowed.
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(SANJEET PUROHIT),J
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
HEENA/MAHIMA/25
2 issues framed by the court
Should the petitioner receive three years' age relaxation under Rule 9(11) since the Stenographer selection was not held for over three years?
Should his candidature be considered for appointment despite exceeding the age limit?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kapil Tiwari
Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Sanjeet Purohit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
