AVINASH BISHNOI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DR. Avinash Bishnoi in Civil Writ Petition No. 6789/94 was appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon (Dentistry) on 16. 10. 1980. His date of birth was 8. 8. 1954. In response to the advertisement dated 29. 11. 1992 for a short term post of Assistant Professor in various subjects of Medical Science were advertised. The maximum age was 35 years as prescribed on 1. 1. 1993. The petitioner had applied for the said post. Though he was interviewed, but he was not appointed. He sent many representations. But lateron came to know that as per Rajasthan Medical Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962 (here-in-after referred to as the rules), he was held to be over age. Even though the case of the petitioner was that even for an urgent temporary appointment, the relaxation is to be given to the employees who were in service upto 40 years and he was of the age of 38 years at that time, as such he was within age limit. No relief was given to him. He filed a civil writ petitioner No. 2178/93 which was decided by the Division Bench of this court.

(2.) SIMILARLY, Dr. Suresh Chand Gupta had also approached the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 189/93 for the same relief as Dr. Avinash Bishnoi. The Division Bench of this Court consisting of M. R. Calla and Y. R. Meena JJ. had decided five connected matters including the writ petition of Suresh Chand and Avinash Bishnoi. The validity of part of the proviso (iv) to Rule 11 (2) of the rules was challenged. The petitioners at that time had crossed the age of 35 years, but were within the age 40 years. They had challenged their rejection for the purpose of selection through the Central Selection Committee for urgent temporary appointment under Rule 30 of the rules on the ground that the upper age limit in case of the persons serving in connection with the affairs of the State in substantive capacity i. e. 40 years, for direct recruitment, to the posts to be filled in by competitive examination or in the case of posts filled in through the Commission by interview. It was the contention that they were not being considered because of age for the purpose of urgent temporary appointment, but they were eligible for regular recruitment upto the age of 40 years.

(3.) SIMILARLY, in the case of Suresh Chand Gupta as well, advertisement was issued vide Annexure-3 on 5. 8. 1996 for the post of Assistant Professor (Radiodiagnosis ). His application was also rejected vide Annexure-4 being age barred.