STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. CHANDRA NARAIN VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned single Judge dated February 25, 1992, whereby the learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition and directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police by ignoring the maximum age limit prescribed under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 and if otherwise found suitable, he may be offered appointment under the Rajasthan Recruitment of the Dependents of Government Servants Dying while in Service Rules, 1975.

(2.) THE brief facts which arc necessary for the convenient disposal of this writ petition are that the father of the petitioner was working on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, when he died on January 20, 1991. After his death, an application was moved by the petitioner to the respondent for seeking appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police under the Rajasthan Recruitment of the Dependents of Government Servants Dying While in Service Rules, 1975 (referred to hereinafter as 'the Rules of 1975' ). It is also submitted that the petitioner respondent has already appeared in the examination, held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1987 and that he cleared the written-examination. However, he could not be appointed because he was lower in merit. After the death of his father, the petitioner-respondent filed an application for service under the Rules of 1975. The application of the petitioner-respondent was processed and his application for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police was rejected as the petitioner was being over age. According to the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1989'), the upper age limit for the post of Sub-Inspector Platoon Commander is 23 years as prescribed under Rule 11 (a) of the Rules of 1989. Since the petitioner was 27 years of age, therefore, he was not found to be eligible for appointment. The matter came up before the learned single Judge as the learned single Judge following the decision given in the case of Shanti Gopal Purohit v. State of Raj (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4815/1990, decided on February 25, 1992) held that by virtue of Rule 4 which gives overriding effect over all other Rules, the provisions of this Rule shall prevail and accordingly the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed as aforesaid. Aggrieved against this judgment of the learned single Judge, the present appeal has been filed by the State.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Additional Advocate General and Mr. G. K. Vyas, Caveator for the respondent.