SUDARSHAN KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking a direction to be issued to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate w.e.f. the date persons ranking below in the merit list of selected candidates forwarded by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission were appointed and he be assigned due seniority.

(2.) THE facts which are necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are that in pursuance of the advertisement for selection to the Rajasthan Judicial Service issued on 17.5.1992 by the respondent No. 1, the State of Rajasthan, the petitioner applied for recruitment to Rajasthan Judicial Service. The petitioner appeared in the written examination, result of the examination was published in the Rajasthan Patrika on 4.12.1992 and he was declared successful. The petitioner was intimated vide letter dated 23.12.1992 that his candidature has been cancelled since he is overage on 1.1.1993 and as such he would not be called for interview. The letter/order dt. 23.12.1992 was challenged by the petitioner by way of filing a writ petition which was registered as D.B.C.W. Petition No. 75/93 Sudarshan Kumar v. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Anr. wherein it was contended that Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 in so far as it fixes the 1st of January of the year succeeding the year in which the examination is held as the relevant date for computing the upper age limit to be ultravires, and as such the order dt. 23.12.1992 be quashed. The Division Bench of this Court vide order dt. 15.1.1993 while issuing notice ordered that the R.P.S.C, may interview the petitioner on the last date of the holding of the interviews or on any other date which is convenient to it, the result will, however, not be declared. In compliance of the order of this Court dt. 15.1.1993, the petitioner was interviewed. In the meantime, the Government vide order dated 23.2.1993 bearing no. 9(1) Nyay/92 informed the R.P.S.C. that for 1992 selection the upper age limit had been relaxed in respect of one Shri Harisingh Fojdar and other similarly situated six candidates, the Division Bench decided the writ petition on 29.3.1993 observing that 'in view of the fact that relief has already been given to the petitioner by the State Government, the writ petition is not pressed. It is disposed off. Consequently, the R.P.S.C. is directed to declare the result of the petitioner as early as possible.' It is also alleged that the petitioner secured 148 marks out of 300 in the written examination and 20 marks out of 35 in viva voce. The petitioner has further alleged that he received a letter dated 13.5.1993 in respect of character verification informing that he had been selected by the R.P.S.C. for the post of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate and thereafter vide communication dated 13.5.1993 he was informed to get himself medically examined. The State Government issued appointment order dated 8.9.1993 whereby 56 condidates were granted appointment on the post of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate and it was mentioned in that order that so far as the appointments of Shri Moni Babu Sharma and Shri Sudarshan Kumar Sharma are concerned, the concurrence from the Hon'ble High Court has not been obtained as such they are not being given appointments. On having come to know this, the petitioner made a representation and also served a notice for demand of justice. Being aggrieved with the action of the respondents of not giving him appointment on the post of Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, the petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court.

(3.) THE respondent No. 1 in its reply has stated that the Government granted relaxation in the maximum age limit vide order dated 23.2.1993 only for the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination, 1992 for six persons including the petitioner and the High Court declined to concur or approve the relaxation granted by the Government since the age limit could only be relaxed in consultation with the High Court in view of Rule 32 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1955). It has also been stated that Rule. 21 of the Rules of 1955 which deals with appointment on the post of Rajasthan Judicial Service and 32 of the said Rules of 1955, are mandatory provisions and makes obligatory for the Government to consult the High Court and obtain its views before appointing Munsif and Judicial Magistrate under the Rules.