NARAYAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner seeks a declaration that the termination of his services is illegal and that the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that the petitioner was given appointment on the post of Forest Guard vide order dated 17. 11. 88 in pursuance of his selection by the Selection Board. THE petitioner's name was forwarded by the Employment Exchange, Chittorgarh in pursuance of the advertisement dated November 24, 1987. THE petitioner's appointment was made after regular selection in Famine Relief Work. THE petitioner was posted vide order Anx. 2 dated November 23, 1988 in the Office of the Assistant Conservator of Forests Patrolling Party, Pratapgarh. Subsequently, the Government created permanent posts of Forest Guards and out of the list which was prepared by the Selection Board, on the basis of which appointment orders were issued, appointments were made vide order Anx. 3 dated May 26, 1988. THE petitioner was not given appointment.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner also submitted that the maximum age limit prescribed under Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 1963, for Forest Guard as 28 is discriminatory and for other services in the same Rules the prescribed maximum age is 31 years. So the age limit prescribed for Forest Guard under Rule 10 is discriminatory. The age limit 28 years for Forest Guard and 31 years for others was substituted w. e. f. 28th of September 1984 in Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules 1963. To this extent the rule is bad when it provides two different age limits for Forest Guard and for other services. This age limit of 28 years for Forest Guard is liable to be read down as 31 years. In this view of the matter as well, the petitioner could not have been denied appointment on the post of Forest Guard.