LAKSHMANAN, CJ. - (1.) HEARD Mr. D. K. Parihar for the petitioner and Mr. Ashok Chhangani and Mr. Rishi Vaishnav for the respondents.
(2.) THE prayer in the writ petition reads as follows:- " (a) THE respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to appear in competitive examination and he be allowed to appear in interview for selection and in case the petitioner be selected then the appointment be given to the petitioner. (b) THE respondents be directed to relax upper age limit by 8 years for the aforesaid competitive examination to the petitioner. " According to the petitioner, he applied for the post of Sub- Inspector Police/platoon Commandant in response to the advertisement published by the respondent No. 2 in the name and style of `sub Inspector of Police Direct Recruitment Combined Competitive Examination 1994'. The last date for submitting the application form was 26. 11. 94. According to rule 11 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules 1989 the minimum age required is 20 years and the upper age limit is 23 years and 3 years' relaxation can be given in upper age limit to Government employees. The petitioner passed the Secondary Examination in the year 1984 and graduated in Commerce in 1988. The petitioner was serving in Medical & Health Department (Health Wing) since 2. 2. 1991 and thereafter at Primary Health Centre. According to the petitioner, the advertisement is illegal on the following grounds:- " (a) The petitioner passed B. Com in the year 1988 and he became eligible for the above mentioned post but the Respondents did not advertise the vacancies thus he was deprived from appearing in the competitive examination. The respondents would have relaxed the upper age limit for 8 years. The date of birth of petitioner is 16. 4. 1966. Thus Arts. 14 & 16 of the Constitution has been violated. " A reply has been submitted by the answering respondents. The only question that arise for consideration in this case is as to whether the respondents should be directed to allow the petitioner to appear in the competitive examination and later for the interview for selection. Incidentally, the Court may have to decide as to whether the respondents should be directed to relax the upper age limit by 8 years for the aforesaid competitive examination. Wer have perused the pleadings and heard the arguments of the learned counsel appearing on either side. In the instant case, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued an Advertisement for filling up the post of Sub-Inspector in Police Department and the last date for submitting the application form was 26. 11. 94. Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules 1989 prescribe the age for the post of Sub-Inspector and according to rule 11 the age of the candidate should not be less than 20 years on January and should not be more than 23 years on the 1st of January. Rule 11 of the Rules reads as follows:- "11. Age, - A candidate for direct recruitment to the services must have (a) for the post of Sub-Inspector/platoon Commander, the age of 20 years and must not have attained the age of 23 years, on 1st January next following the last date fixed for receipt of applications. (b) for the post of Constables, the age of 18 years and must not have attained the age of 21 years on 1st day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of applications. However the upper age-limit for Constable (Driver) shall be 24 years: Provided that (1) the upper age-limit shall be relaxed upto 5 years in case of the candidates belonging to the SC/st, and Women, and 3 years in case of the candidates belonging to State Government employees and the dependents of the deceased Police Officers/officials killed in the discharge of their duties; (2) the upper age-limit mentioned above shall be 40 years in the case of Ex-Service Personnel and the Reservists, namely the service personnel who are transferred to the Reserve; (3) however the upper age-limit mentioned above may be relaxed by three years in exceptional cases by appointing authority, after previous approval of Government; (4) that the Released Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers after release from the army, shall be deemed to be within the age-limit, when they appear before the Commission, had they been eligible as such at the time of their joining the Commission in the Army. "
(3.) SINCE the date fixed for submitting the application form was 26. 11. 94, therefore, the age has been prescribed keeping in view the next calendar year and it is on the 1st January of the next calendar year that the age of the candidate should not be less than 20 years and more than 23 years. Relaxation has been provided for a period of three years for those candidates who are in Government job. Examination for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police was conducted by the RPSC in 1989. In the instant case the petitioner was working as MP in Medical & Health Department since 2. 2. 91. The advertisement issued by the RPSC for conducting examination for the post of Sub-Inspector is in accordance with law and in view of rule 11 of the Rules. It is clear that the age of the candidate should not be more than 23 years on 1. 1. 95. We have perused the marksheet placed on record by the petitioner in this case. The marksheet indicates passing of Secondary School Examination in the year 1984. It is clearly seen from the marksheet annexed to the writ petition that the date of birth of the petitioner happened to be 16. 4. 66 and according to the petitioner on 15. 4. 89 he had completed 23 years of age. Even assuming that the petitioner is entitled to relaxation of 3 years period, in view of the fact that he was in Government job, yet he will not be able to write the examination after 15. 4. 92 on which date he had completed 26 years of age. On 1. 1. 95 the age of the petitioner, according to his own version would be 28 years and 8 months and the would be over age and thus ineligible to write the examination held by the RPSC. It is also pertinent to notice that the petitioner, in response to the advertisement, had also submitted his application before the last date of submission, namely 26. 11. 94. The petitioner was allotted Roll No. 10221 and scrutiny of the application did not take place before holding the written examination for the said post. The written examination was held on 14. 05. 1995 but the petitioner remained absent and did not participate in the examination held on 14. 5. 95. It is argued on behalf of the respondents that the selection process for the Sub-Inspector was completed by the Commission in the month of March 1996 and the recommendation of the selected candidates was forwarded by the Commission to the State Government on 29. 3. 1996 and the State Government had also accepted the recommendation and has given appointment to the selected candidates in the month of August 1996 and a copy of which has been forwarded to the Commission by the State Government. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground also. ;