AJEETA BAI MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of her writ petition. The learned Single Judge held that since she had not completed 21 years i.e. the minimum age prescribed to compete for the purpose of recruitment (as on 1/7/2015), her claim could not be granted.

(2.) Mr. MC Taylor, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submitted that on an identical question with respect to the same recruitment i.e. (the selection to the post of Lecturer, on account of advertisement issued on 12/1/2015) this Court had affirmed the order of the learned Single Judge in appeal (D.B. Special Appeal (W) No. 663-2019- Asha Meena v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission decided on 9/5/2019).

(3.) It is submitted that the above judgment in Asha Meena (supra) cannot be considered as an authority since it overlooked several salient and relevant aspects. It is argued that the advertisement unequivocally shows that the recruitment in fact coincides the financial or fiscal year. It was submitted that this Court in the judgment overlooked the fact a material aspect which is that a subsequent Notification (dtd. 15/10/2015) in fact amounted to a fresh advertisement and so viewed, the appellant was eligible to compete as she had reached the minimum age. It is further pointed out that the second advertisement cannot be considered as a corrigendum for two significant reasons; (i) that the number of vacancies were increased and even the details with respect to the vacancy position in various departments were disclosed and (ii) that the corrigendum for the first time indicated the mode of selection of appointment would be on the basis of written examination which was absent in the first advertisement dtd. 12/1/2015.