ASHOK KUMAR DAYAMA Vs. STATE AND ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS bunch of cases involves same question of law therefore, they were ordered to club together. The matters are heard and the same are decided by this common judgment.

(2.) FOR the convenience, fact of Writ Petition No. 3656/06 Ashok Kumar Dayama v. State and Anr. have been taken into consideration. The respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued an advertisement calling for the application for the post of Sub -Inspector, Police vide Annexure/4. As per para 6, it was provided that as on 01.01.2008 a candidate should not have attained the age of 25 years and should not be of the age of less then 20 years. The petitioners herein have challenged the said clause on the ground that the selection on the post of Sub -Inspector was lastly made in the year 2003 and thereafter vide annexure/4 the advertisement has been amended and was issued now in the year 2007 i.e. almost after lapse of 4 years and if anybody reached to the age beyond 25 years in intervening period of for 4 years he/she cannot be debarred from the right of consideration because it is due to the failure of the Government that the selections are not made every year despite of the fact that as per Rules such selection should be conducted each year after determining the vacancies as on 1st April of the each vacancy year. On the aforesaid ground, the action of the respondents has been challenged. It has further been submitted that on the prior occasion when the advertisement was issued in the year 2001, the vacancy up to year 1998 was taken into consideration, therefore, now pursuant to the impugned advertisement, the vacancies under consideration are of 1999 onwards thus their eligibility should be considered after taking note of the corresponding year more so on the previous occasion when the posts were advertised, relaxation in age was given but while issuing the impugned advertisement, no such relaxation is provided.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners in rejoinder of the reply submitted that even as per rules, the Government was having authority to relax the age taking into consideration the peculiar facts of those case, however, despite of existence of rules, the Government has failed to relax the age despite of the fact that selections have been made after lapse of several years. In that regard reference in, 2007 (9) SCC 507 has been made to show that even the Hon 'ble Apex Court held that in the appropriate case, the authority can relax the age of a candidate thus, on the strength of the aforesaid judgment, the counsel for the petitioner prayed for grant of such relaxation.