- (1.) D. P. Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 1, Shri Yashwant Verma, for respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 and Shri Vijay Singh, for respondent No. 5.
(2.) PLEADINGS are complete and the counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be finally disposed of under the Rules of the Court. In pursuance of an advertisement dated 22. 11. 2004 inviting applications for recruitment to Class III post in the Judgeship at Banda, the petitioner alongwith several other applied, the petitioner having cleared his written and other examination was selected and an appointment letter dated 17. 1. 2005 was issued and started to draw his salary. After about two years he was intimated by the Civil Judge vide his order dated 23. 12. 2006 that on the basis of a complaint raised by one of his uncles, an enquiry has been ordered and he should participate in the enquiry. The petitioner submitted his reply and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the District Judge who vide a show cause notice dated 29. 1. 2007 asked the petitioner to show cause why his services not be terminated because he was overage by one day and thus, was not eligible for appointment. The petitioner submitted his detailed reply, but by the impugned order dated 31. 1. 2007 his services were dispensed with and thus, this petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that he was overage only by a day and since he did not conceal anything and submitted his testimonials etc. , it was a fit case where the District Judge, ought to have approached the High Court under Clause II of Rule 6 of the Subordinate Civil Court Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 (here-in-after referred to as the Rules ).
(3.) NO doubt the petitioner was overage by one day which is in consonance with the method adopted by the Apex Court in Prabhu Dayal Seswa v. State of Rajas than and others, AIR 1986 SC 1948, which has also been relied upon by the respondents. But in the penultimate paragraph of the report it dealt with hardship which may be caused in such cases in the following words: " Before- parting with the case, we shall be failing in our duty if we do not advert to the undue hardship caused to the appellant. The appellant had not only qualified at the written examination held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission but was also called for an interview under the directions of the High Court. In case he cleared the interview, it would imply that the appellant would fail to secure entry into the Rajasthan Administrative Service just by one day because of the interpretation placed on Rule 11b of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Competitive Examination) Rules, 1962. We wish the Government would consider the question of relaxing the upper age limit in the case of appellant in order to mitigate the hardship, if otherwise permissible. There is need for a provision like the proviso to Rule 4 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Competitive Examination) Regulations, 1955, conferring the power of relaxation on the State Government under certain conditions without which a. candidate though deserved would be ineligible for appointment. " Rule 6 (U) of the Rules in the same terms as the Apex Court opined in afore-quoted paragraph. It reads as under: " 6. Age.-A candidate for recruitment to a post in the ministerial establishment shall not be less than 18 or more than 27 years of age on the date of the competitive test held for the purposes, provided that- (I) any continuous period spent in Civil Service of the Government and any period spent after the third day of September, 1939, in the service of His Majesty's Naval, Military or Air Force shall be deducted from the age of the applicant for the purpose of deciding his eligibility (ii) the District Judge may with the sanction of the High Court of the Chief Court, as the case may be, extend the age limit in favour of a candidate on the grounds of public interest or fair dealing (iii) the maximum age limit applicable to a candidate of the Scheduled Castes for service under these rules shall be greater by one year than the maximum age limit prescribed for other candidates. ";