Deemed Age Eligibility Provided To Obviate Hardship Due To Non-Holding Of Exams Regularly: Rajasthan HC Dismisses Plea Challenging Age Eligibility For Rajasthan Judicial Services
|The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a petition challenging the age eligibility criteria for the recruitment to the post of Civil Judge Cadre in the Rajasthan Judicial Services (RJS).
The Jaipur Bench upheld the validity of Clause 20 of the advertisement posted outlining the age eligibility criteria for the recruitment. The Court observed that the object and purpose of providing a “deemed age eligibility” to the candidates was to obviate the hardship on account of non-holding the examination on a regular basis.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Bhuwan Goyal observed, “The object and purpose of providing such deemed age eligibility is to obviate hardship on account of non-holding of the examination in regular course. Therefore, by necessary implication, deemed eligibility will have to be ascertained by first examining whether candidates would have been eligible with age relaxation under the Rule, had the examination been held in the following year. If the candidate is not eligible, the provision of deemed relaxation, as contained in proviso (iv) to Rule 17 of the Rules of 2010, would not come to his aid.”
Advocate Abhishek Sharma represented the petitioner, while Sr. Advocate AK Sharma appeared for the respondents.
The petitioner contested the age limits prescribed in the advertisement, arguing that the criterion was inconsistent with Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (2010 Rules). Clause 20 mandated that candidates must be between 21 and 40 years old as of January 1, 2025, with specific age relaxations for certain categories, including Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, More Backward Classes, Economically Weaker Sections, women candidates, and persons with benchmark disabilities.
The petitioner argued that the prescribed age limit was not in line with Rule 17, submitting that the object of the provision was to allow those candidates, who on account of non-holding of examination every year, became ineligible even though they would have been eligible, had the examination been held regularly.
The Court clarified that Clause 20 of the advertisement did not violate the provisions contained in Rule 17 of the Rules of 2010. Thus, the petition was dismissed, and the court upheld the age criteria set forth in the April 2024 advertisement.
Consequently, the Court held, “The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that for the purposes of granting deemed eligibility, the respondents ought to have strictly followed what was done in the year 2021, need not to be gone into by us.”
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the petition.
Cause Title: Ghanshyam Das Vijay v. Rajasthan High Court & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JP:25093-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Abhishek Sharma and GL Sharma
Respondents: Sr. Advocate AK Sharma; Advocate Vishnu Kant Sharma