Dismissed¶24

Akash Kumar Nama S/O Shri Surendra Kumar Nama v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC12 Jan 2026SAW/784/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In-service candidate age bar 40 years; Assistant Fire Officer recruitment advertisement 08.09.2011 Rajasthan; interview call letter non-receipt as disputed question of fact not examinable in writ petition; stale claim / lapse of almost 13 years rendering writ petition otiose; posts already filled; further advertisement 13.12.2015 selection finalized; State Level Municipal (subordinate & Ministerial Services) Commission; Local Self Government Department; D.B. Special Appeal Writ 784/2025 arising from Civil Writ Petition 11411/2012; appeal dismissed, pending applications dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Merely crossing the age of 40 years could not by itself have ousted the appellant, and the writ petition was not liable to be dismissed on that count alone. ¶19

Akash Kumar Nama S/O Shri Surendra Kumar Nama Vs State of Rajasthan — Rajasthan HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether an in-service candidate who has crossed the age of 40 years could be ousted from consideration for appointment on the ground of age alone. +2 more

¶15

Court's answer

Merely crossing the age of 40 years could not by itself have ousted the appellant, and the writ petition was not liable to be dismissed on that count alone.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

Receipt or non-receipt of the interview call letter is purely a question of fact and cannot be examined in writ proceedings; hence that contention could not ground relief here.

¶19

Key takeaways

After a lapse of almost 13 years, with the posts already filled and appointments made, no relief of directing the appellant to appear for interview can be issued.ratio¶20
No relief can be granted to the appellant after almost 13 years; the writ petition has become otiose, and the appellant cannot be granted the relief claimed.ratio¶21

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Rajasthan High Court (Jaipur Bench), D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 784/2025, decided 12/01/2026 by Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Acting Chief Justice and Sangeeta Sharma, J. — The Division Bench dismissed the appellant's appeal against the Single Judge's order dated 10.03.2025 dismissing his writ petition (No.11411/2012) concerning recruitment to the post of Assistant Fire Officer advertised on 08.09.2011. While accepting that merely crossing the age of 40 years could not have ousted the in-service candidate and that dismissal on that count alone was unwarranted, the Bench held that whether the appellant received the interview call letter (interviews slated 23.06.2012-24.06.2012) was purely a question of fact incapable of examination in writ proceedings. With the advertised posts already filled, appointments made, and a further advertisement dated 13.12.2015 worked to finalization, the Court found that after almost 13 years the petition had become otiose and the claimed relief could not be granted; accordingly the appeal and pending application, if any, stand dismissed.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 784/2025

¶3

¶4

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11411/2012

¶5

Akash Kumar Nama S/o Shri Surendra Kumar Nama, aged about 40 years resident of House No.27/310, Ward No.23, Retwali, Kota (Raj.)

¶6

----Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Rajasthan, through Secretary, State Level Municipal (subordinate & Ministerial Services) Commission, Department of Local Self Government, Swayat Shasan Bhawan, G-3, Raj Mahal Residency Area, Jaipur, 302001

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Appellant(s)	: Dr. Abhinav Sharma with
	Ms. Puja Sharma,
	Mr. Akshaya Verma &
	Mr. Vishal Choudhary
For Respondent(s)	:

¶11

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA

¶12

Order

¶13

12/01/2026

¶14

This is an appeal assailing the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, the writ petition was dismissed considering that there are disputed questions of fact and that the appellant was approximately above 40 years of age on the date of passing of the order.

¶15

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was an in-service candidate and age of 40 years would not come as an embargo for consideration of his candidature and therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have dismissed the petition

¶16

[SAW-784/2025]

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

on that ground. He also submits that there are vacant seats available and the said fact was already placed on record.

¶19

We have considered the submissions. While we agree that merely on crossing the age of 40 years, the appellant could not have been ousted and the writ petition would not be liable to be dismissed on that count. However, we notice, on facts, that the appellant had applied for the post of Assistant Fire Officer for which advertisement was issued on 08.09.2011. The respondents had issued letters for calling persons for interviews which were to be conducted from 23.06.2012 to 24.06.2012 and it is the submission of the appellant that the appellant did not receive the call letter. Whether he receive the call letter or not is purely a question of fact which cannot be gone into while examining the writ petition.

¶20

However, the fact remains that the posts of Assistant Fire Officer in terms of the advertisement have already been filled and the appointments have already been made. After lapse of almost 13 years, no relief for directing the appellant to appear for interview can be issued by this Court. It is also noticed that in the reply, the respondents have stated that further advertisement was issued on 13.12.2015 and the selection process in terms of that advertisement has already been finalized.

¶21

Thus, from all corners, we find that no relief can be granted to the appellant after almost 13 years and the writ petition has become otiose. We, therefore, do find any reason to entertain the contentions of the appellant and we hold that the appellant cannot be granted the relief as claimed after almost 13 years.

¶22

[SAW-784/2025]

¶23

(3 of 3)

¶24