STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MAHIPAL SINGH SISODIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DELAY condoned.

(2.) PETITIONER was appointed as Primary School Teacher vide order dated 17. 7. 1993 and was posted at Panchayat Samiti, Garhi (Banswara ). An advertisement was issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) for making appointment on the posts of Sub Inspectors in the year 1994. Learned counsel for respondent's contention is that earlier to the advertisement issued for the recruitment on the post of Sub Inspectors in the year 1994, no recruitment was made for the post of Sub Inspectors after the year 1989. The respondent becomes eligible for the appointment to the post of Sub Inspector as he possesses the requisite qualification in pursuance of the advertisement issued by the RPSC and the respondent submitted his application for the appointment to the post of Sub Inspector. The respondent was called for written test and in pursuance of the call letter for the written test, the respondent appeared in the written examination which was held on 14. 5. 1995 and the respondent (Mahipal Singh Sisodia) was declared successful as his name found place in the list of successful candidates which was published in the newspaper. Thereafter, the respondent was called for physical Efficiency Test vide letter dated 20. 11. 1995 and he appeared for Physical Efficiency Test on 6. 12. 1995 and was declared successful in the same. The controversy arose from the communication dated 23. 11. 1996 issued by the Assistant Secretary, RPSC, by which the respondent was informed that his declaration of the result was provisional, but the respondent being over age, his candidature has been rejected. Aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the letter dated 23. 11. 1996 issued by the RPSC, the respondent preferred the writ petition before this Court seeking relief to quash and set aside the communication dated 23. 11. 1996 by which the respondent was declared overage and was held not eligible for all purposes for the post of Sub Inspector for which the respondent applied in pursuance to the advertisement issued in the year 1994.

(3.) THE judgment passed in the case of J. Ashok Kumar (supra) is not applicable to the instant case.