OMNARAIN PUROHIT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed that the Rajasthan Public service Commission may be directed to call him for interview for the posts of Senior Teachers advertised by the Advertisement No. 6/89 -90 and the communications dated 6.11.90 (Anx. 3) and dated 18.12.90 (Anx. 5) issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission be quashed.

(2.) PETITIONER was born on 15.6.1957. He passed M.A. in Hindi from the University of Rajasthan and thereafter did his Ph. D. from the University of Rajasthan and thereafter did his P.H.D. from the University of Rajasthan in the year 1984. He also passed B.Ed, examination in the year 1986.

(3.) THE petitioner has stated that after 1984 vacancies in the cadre of Senior Teacher (subsequently re -designated as School Lecturer) were not advertised by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. Such advertisement was issued only in the year 1989 vide Advertisement No. 6/89 -90. The last date fixed for the receipt of the applications was fixed as 20th of October, 1989. The petitioner submitted his application for selection on the post of School Lecturer in the prescribed proforma as to reach to the Commission before the last date fixed for the receipt of the application. The petitioner fulfilled all the requirements of qualifications and age as prescribed in the Advertisement. The petitioner appeared for the written test held by the Commission on 1.5.1990. The result of the written test was announced by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and petitioner was shown as one of the candidates who were treated eligible to be called for interview. However, by a communication dated 6.11.90 (Anx. 3) the Rajasthan Public Service Commission informed the petitioner that he cannot be called for interview because he is over age. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 26.11.1990 to the Commission. In his representation he claimed that he is serving in connection with the affairs of the State is sptitled to be considered within age limit of 40 years which is applicable for persons holding the post substantively and who are serving in connection with the affairs of the State. This representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the Commission and he has been communicated with the decision of the Commission by letter dated 18.12.1990 (Anx. 5).