BABU LAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN challenge is the judgment and order dated 23.7.2007 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3666/2006 rejecting the appellant's impeachment of the letter dated 15.4.2006 whereby he had been adjudged in eligible because of his over age for appointment to the post of lecturer in Economics as advertised on 18.8.2004 by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission'). We have heard Ms Ashish Josh, learned counsel for the the appellant and Shri S.N. Kumawat, the learned Additional Advocate General, for Commission. The facts in brief essential for the disposal of the appeal are that in response to the above advertisement, the appellant had offered his candidature for the aforementioned post. The advertisement, inter alia, mentioned the lower and upper age limits of eligibility to be 24 years and 35 years, respectively, as on 1.7.2005. In clause 11(11) of the advertisement, it was inter alia mentioned that those who in terms of the Government notification dated 25.6.2004 had after 1.1.1999 crossed the upper age limit would also be eligible to apply. In the explanation it was clarified that the person to be eligible ought to be within the upper age limit as on 1.1.1999.

(2.) THE prescribed mode of selection being interview, the appellant having not been called therefor, approached this court for redress. It transpired that his candidature had been rejected on the ground that on 1.1.1999 he was above 33 years of age, the upper age limit for appointment in public service as prevalent at that point of time. According to the Commission as on 1.1.1999 the appellant was above 33 years of age and thus was not qualified to participate in the process. Contending that in view of the upper age limit of 35 years mentioned in the advertisement, he was eligible, the appellant laid the challenge. The learned Single Judge having rejected his plea, he is in appeal. Ms Ashish Joshi has reiterated with reference to clause 11 of the advertisement in particular as well as the notification dated 25.6.2004 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) raising the upper age limit by two years as well as the notification dated 27.6.1998 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) that as the appellant was within the ambit thereof, his candidature could not have been rejected and that as the learned Single Judge has failed to examine this aspect of the matter, the impugned judgment ought to be interfered with. Shri S.N. Kumawat, on the other hand has urged that a bare reading of the notification dated 25.6.2004 demonstrates that the reference to the upper age limit on 1.1.1999 is unmistakbly with regard to one prevalent as on that date i.e. 33 years and as the appellant admittedly on that date was aged more than 33 years, his candidature was rightly rejected and thus no interference is called for.

(3.) IN that view of the matter, having regard to the age of the appellant as on 1.1.1999 i.e. above 33 years, we do not feel persuaded to hold that he could be extended the benefit of the enhancement of the upper age limit to 35 years in terms of the notification dated 25.6.2004. The plea to the contrary is unconvincing. We thus do not find any merit in this appeal. The impugned order thus do not call for any interference. The appeal is dismissed.