Smt. Beena Sharma W/O Rajesh Chaturvedi Vs State of Rajasthan

Balbir Singh Son Of Shri Ruda Ram Khatana, Aged About 53 Years, Resident Of 13-Gurjar Ka Mohalla, Tamoriwas, P.o. Kotputli, District-Jaipur At Present Resident Of House No. 98, Near Gurjar Hostel, Vaishali Nagar, P.o. Kotputli, District-Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶15

----Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Aayurved And Personnel And Indian Medicines Deptt. Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶18

Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved University, Through Its Registrar, Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan University, Jodhpur.

¶19

Director, Ayurved And Indian Medicine, Ajmer (Rajasthan).

¶20

----Respondents

¶21

[2026:RJ-JP:5476] (2 of 10)

¶22

[CW-15810/2023]

¶23

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. Rishabh Khandelwal
		Mr. Rajendra Kumar Soni Dr. Nitin Soni
For Respondent(s)	:	Mr. Vishesh Sharma
		Ms. Karishma Soni for
		Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta,AGC

¶24

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

¶25

Order

¶26

04/02/2026

¶27

These writ petitions are preferred by petitioners with following prayers:

¶28

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15810/2023:

¶29

“(i) Pass an appropriate, writ order or direction directing that the age relaxation benefit of 5 years for already working Contractual Ayurvedic Chakastaks under NHM Scheme, as provided under condition No. 12 of the advertisement shall be in addition to the other age relaxation benefit conditions as provided in the advertisement no.2/2023.

¶30

(ii) Pass an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, setting aside condition no. 1 of the notes in the Advertisement No.2/2023, whereby the age relaxation benefits have been made as noncumulative, i.e. only one age relaxation benefit condition shall be available to a Candidate.

¶31

(iii) Pass an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the Respondents to allow the petitioners to participate in the Selection Process for Ayurvedic Chikitsak and appoint the petitioners on the posts of Ayurvedic Chikitsak, if selected in the merit list, pursuant to the advertisement.

(3 of 10)

[2026:RJ-JP:5476]

[CW-15810/2023]

(iv) Alternatively, Pass an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, directing the Respondents to remove / relax the upper age limit criteria of less than 45 years on 1.1.2024 as fixed under the Advertisement for the continuously working Ayurvedic Chikitsaks as Contractual appointees under the National Rural Mission Scheme, appointed through a Public Advertisement.”

¶36

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11906/2021:

¶37

By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction quash the final provisional merit list dated 12 October 2021 and provisional merit list 4th of October 2021 in so far as it relates to deleting the name of petitioner from provisional merit list dated 27 October 2021 is concerned be set asides and the petitioner be considered for appointment on the post of Ayurveda Chikitsadhikari in M.B.C. category according to his merit treating him within age against the advertisement dated 22nd of December 2020, with all consequential benefits.

¶38

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Smt. Beena Sharma and Sheela Gupta submitted that pursuant to advertisement dated 28.01.2016 issued for recruitment under the NHM on contractual basis, the petitioners have filed application and they were selected wherein upper age limit for selection was 55 years. He further submitted that since then, petitioners are working as Ayurvedic doctors on contractual basis. He further submitted that respondent have issued an advertisement dated 20.04.2023 for regular selection under the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules, 1973, (hereinafter referred as "Rule of 1973"), for recruitment of Ayurvedic doctors on 639

(4 of 10)

[2026:RJ-JP:5476]

[CW-15810/2023]

posts. He further submitted that petitioners have challenged the certain conditions of the advertisement by filing a writ petition wherein this Hon'ble Court has passed an interim order dated 26.05.2023 whereby the petitioners were allowed to submit their application form and participate in the recruitment process provisionally.

¶43

He further submitted that the advertisement dated 20.04.2023 was revoked by the respondent and now a new advertisement for selection on 652 posts of Ayurvedic doctors have been issued for inviting applications. He further submitted that the upper age limit for determining eligibility for selection has been fixed as 45 years as on 01.01.2024 but certain age relaxations provisions were made in the advertisement, but same are insufficient unless their writ is allowed. He further submitted that in the advertisement issued in the year 2016, the upper age limit was fixed as 55 years but in the current advertisement, the upper age limit after availing relaxation is fixed 50 years, which would oust the petitioners.

¶44

He also submitted that petitioners are female candidates and they are entitled for cumulative benefit of relaxation, being female candidate and additionally age relaxation of 3 years as provided under the advertisement. He further referred the grounds and submitted that the respondents have committed serious error by not providing cumulative age relaxation to the petitioners. Learned counsel for petitioners has placed reliance upon judgment dated 21.05.2024 in Dr. Mohd. Yunus versus State of Rajasthan and others,

[2026:RJ-JP:5476]

[CW-15810/2023]

(5 of 10)

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16633/2023 , decided by a coordinate bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur and submitted that a coordinate bench has quashed the provisions of relaxation of age limit with non-cumulative effect and directed the respondents to give age relaxation in cumulative manner.

¶49

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner Balbir Singh has submitted that petitioner belongs to most backward class (MBC) category and after passing BAMS examination in 2014, he was appointed in NRHM on 13.06.2016 as Ayurvedic doctor. He further submitted that the respondent have advertised 450 posts of Ayurvedic doctor on 22.12.2020 and it was further modified on 21.06.2021 and posts were increased to 590. He further submitted that petitioner was found eligible in MBC category and placed at serial number 4 in provisional merit list of MBC category, but during document verification, due to some misconception about the age of petitioner, the name of petitioner was not included in the select list, though petitioner has secured 73.48 percentile and candidates having lower percentile up to 48.72 were selected.

¶50

Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents have opposed the contentions raised by learned counsels for the petitioners and submitted that in both the cases issue pertains to relaxation of age and the manner in which petitioners have claimed relaxation is not permissible under the rules. He further submitted that issue pertaining to age relaxation was considered recently by a Division Bench of

(6 of 10)

[2026:RJ-JP:5476]

[CW-15810/2023]

this Hon'ble Court in case of State of Rajasthan and Ors. versus Ali Taqi and others, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1123/2024 decided on 09.09.2025 at Principal Seat Jodhpur wherein it was held that if the rules provides for non-cumulative relaxation, then same must be respected.

¶55

He further referred judgment dated 29.04.2016 in Alsa Ram Meghwal versus RPSC and another, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1141/2008 decided by a Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur and order dated 27.09.2023 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13782/2023, Dr. Dayaram Saran and others versus State of Rajasthan and others decided by a Coordinate Bench at Principal Seat Jodhpur, and submitted that age of relaxation on cumulative basis of already turned down.

¶56

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. Also considered the judgments as referred by learned counsel for the parties.

¶57

The issue pertains to age relaxation and controversy is whether the provision of age relaxation be read as it has been provided in the advertisement or rules or the Court may interpret and opine differently and direct to provide age relaxation on cumulative manner.

¶58

Here in these cases, the petitioners have claimed cumulative age relaxation formula be adopted so that they may become eligible in terms of age, but the respondents have vehemently opposed the formula and submitted that the rule provides only non-cumulative age relaxation, therefore,

(7 of 10)

[2026:RJ-JP:5476]

[CW-15810/2023]

petitioners are not entitled for more age relaxation, by counting two categories together.

¶63

In case of Dr. Mohd. Yunus versus State of Rajasthan

¶64

and others (supra), a Coordinate Bench of this Court while considering age relaxation on post of Unani Medical Officer in NRHM has observed that the provision under the advertisement in question for relaxation of age limit with non-cumulative effect is quashed and the respondents are directed to give cumulative relaxation of age to eligible petitioners with consequential benefit, considering their candidature as per their merit position.

¶65

On the other side, the issue relating to age relaxation was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in case of Alsa Ram Meghwal (supra), and opined that different upper age limit having been prescribed under the rules, service candidates treating them to be a distinct class, no distinction can be made between government servants so as to make them entitled to claim relaxation under proviso (1) or (14) to Rule 13 being member of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or other backward classes, as the case may be. It is well settled that the function of the Court is to interpret the law and not to legislate, therefore, it is not possible to interpret Rule 13 of the Rules on the merits, as suggested on behalf of appellants so as to extend applicability of relaxation in age as provided under the rules.

¶66

In case of Dr. Dayaram Saran (supra) , a Coordinate Bench has considered relaxation in age and observed that the petitioners are entitled for relaxation of maximum five

(8 of 10)

[2026:RJ-JP:5476]

[CW-15810/2023]

years and since they have attained the age of 53 to 57 years, so they are overage in terms of provision of the rules.

¶71

In case of State of Rajasthan versus Dr. Ali Taqi and

¶72

others (supra) , a Division Bench of this Court after considering the provisions under the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules, 1973 in a matter relating to recruitment notification dated 13.07.2023 has considered judgment in case of Malik Mazhar Sultan versus UPSC, (2006) 9 SCC 507 and Ashish Kumar versus State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 55, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that statutory rule prevails over any contrary condition in advertisement. After considering the advertisement and the provisions under the Rules of 1973, the Division Bench has observed the current legal position as under:

¶73

"7.15. In this backdrop, the correct legal position can be summarized in the following manner:

¶74

If the Rule itself provides for cumulative relaxation, the same must be respected.

¶75

If the Rule prescribes non-cumulative relaxation, then the Rule will prevail.

¶76

If the Rule is silent, the advertisement will govern the recruitment (as in the present case).

¶77

If both the Rule and the advertisement are silent, the default position is that relaxation will be noncumulative.

¶78

If the State intends to extend cumulative benefit, it must do so by express stipulation in the Rule or the advertisement.

¶79

Thus, if the Rule is speaking, the Rule will prevail; if silent, the advertisement

(9 of 10)

[2026:RJ-JP:5476]

[CW-15810/2023]

will prevail. (“Rules of the game cannot be changed midway after the process of appointment to public post has already begun.”)

¶84

7.16. Tested on these touchstones, the respondents/writ petitioners cannot claim cumulative relaxation, as the Rules of 1973 are silent and the advertisement explicitly rules out such aggregation. Thus the binding terms of the advertisement cannot be disregarded and travelled beyond the governing framework.

¶85

7.17. Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that the Rules of 1973 do not envisage cumulative age relaxation across different categories. Each relaxation under Rule 9 of the said Rules is to be applied independently within its own sphere. The express stipulation in the advertisement that relaxations shall be noncumulative is consistent with the statutory framework and cannot be termed arbitrary or de hors the Rules. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in directing the appellants to extend cumulative relaxation to the respondents."

¶86

Having considered the judgment of Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur in case of State of Rajasthan versus Dr. Ali Taqi and others (supra), petitioners are not entitled for age relaxation in cumulative manner as same has not been provided under the Rules of 1973. Thus, the judgment referred by learned counsel for petitioners in case of Dr. Mohd. Yunus versus State of Rajasthan (supra) , is not applicable upon facts of the case.

¶87

In view of discussion made hereinabove, the petitioners have failed to show any provision of rule which provides for age relaxation in cumulative manner. Thus, the petitioners are not entitled for any relief on any of the grounds mentioned in the writ petitions.

[2026:RJ-JP:5476]

[CW-15810/2023]

(10 of 10)