Shailesh Kumar Sharma vs State of Rajasthan

Nirmaljit Kaur, J.—The facts in short are that the petitioners were appointed on the post of Jr. Instructors on temporary basis. At the time of appointment, they were stated to be within age limit.

Vide advertisement dated 5.6.2012, applications were invited for filling up the posts of Group Instructor/Surveyor/Assistant Apprentice Gr.II. Petitioners applied as ''departmental employee'' under General category for the post in question. After succeeding in the written examination, they were called for interview. However, vide order dated 29.5.2014, their application forms were rejected.

While praying for setting aside the impugned order with a further prayer to appoint them on the respective posts, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the advertisement for the post in question has been issued after a long time whereas the vacancies were available in the year 1991 and 1997. It was further contended that they are entitled for age relaxation as per para 6 of the advertisement and therefore, age relaxation should have been given to them.

Learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC submitted that a similar writ petition with the same controversy and pertaining to the same impugned order has already been dismissed by the Single Bench of this Court vide order dated 7.8.2014. It is further contended that petitioners were not entitled to the age relaxation as per para 6 of the advertisement as the same is applicable to only temporary employees whereas the petitioners were confirmed and are regular employees.

Heard.

After arguing for some time, learned counsel for the petitioners admitted that all the petitioners were subsequently confirmed and are regular employees of the department as on date. Moreover, it is evident from the reply filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 that the RPSC vide its letter dated 5.6.2014 asked the Director of Technical Education to resend the recommendation in the light of appointment of the petitioners under Rule 20 and 22 of the Rajasthan Technical Training Subordinate Service Rules, 1975. The respondent department vide letter dated 6.6.2014 communicated that the petitioners are not entitled to age relaxation for the reasons that the appointment of petitioners is a substantive appointment. As per para (6) of the advertisement, only temporary employees are entitled for age relaxation and shall be granted two opportunities for appearing in the examination for the said posts whereas it is evident from Clause 9 of the same advertisement that the maximum age limit for a regular employee is 40 years. It is further stated that their initial appointment although temporary was also on a substantive post. Therefore, the condition of advertisement referred to by the petitioners for relaxation of age is not applicable in the case of the petitioners who are stated to be now confirmed and regular on the post on which they were initially appointed. Moreover, as stated above, a similar writ petition being S.B.C.W.P. No. 4506/2014 also stands dismissed vide order dated 7.8.2014.

In view of the above, no case for interference is made out. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.