RAJDEO PATHAK Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. P. Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1, Shri Yashwant Verma, for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and Shri Vijay Singh, for respondent No. 5.

(2.) PLEADINGS are complete and the counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be finally disposed of under the Rules of the Court.

(3.) NO doubt the petitioner was overage by one day which is in consonance with the method adopted by the Apex Court in Prabhu Dayal Seswa v. State of Rajas than and others, AIR 1986 SC 1948, which has also been relied upon by the respondents. But in the penultimate paragraph of the report it dealt with hardship which may be caused in such cases in the following words: " Before- parting with the case, we shall be failing in our duty if we do not advert to the undue hardship caused to the appellant. The appellant had not only qualified at the written examination held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission but was also called for an interview under the directions of the High Court. In case he cleared the interview, it would imply that the appellant would fail to secure entry into the Rajasthan Administrative Service just by one day because of the interpretation placed on Rule 11b of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Competitive Examination) Rules, 1962. We wish the Government would consider the question of relaxing the upper age limit in the case of appellant in order to mitigate the hardship, if otherwise permissible. There is need for a provision like the proviso to Rule 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Competitive Examination) Regulations, 1955, conferring the power of relaxation on the State Government under certain conditions without which a. candidate though deserved would be ineligible for appointment. "