SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE candidature of the appellant-original petitioner was rejected only on the ground that she had crossed age of 40, therefore, her case was not considered by the respondents. THE same was challenged by her before this Court by way of writ petition No. 4165/98, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court on 15. 1. 99. Hence, this special appeal.
(2.) LEARNED counsel Mr. Parihar for the appellant submitted that under Rule 11 (B) of the Rajasthan Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combind Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1962, the petitioner was entitled to be considered as she is from women category. He submitted that under Rule 11 (B) (1) of the Rules the upper age limit shall have to be relaxed by further 5 years in her case and that she has not completed 45 years, therefore, the respondents committed an error in rejecting her candidature. We are afraid that we cannot accept this submission of Mr. Parihar. Before considering the aforesaid submission we would like to quote relevant portion of Rule 11 (B) of the Rules which is as under: "11 (B) Age: Notwithstanding anything contained regarding age limit through the agency of the commission to the posts in the State Services and in the Subordinate Services mentioned in Schedule I and Schedule II respectively, a candidate for direct recruitment to the posts to be filled in by Combined Competitive Examinations conducted by the Commission under these Rules must have attained the age of 21 years and must not have attained the age of "33' years on the first day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of applications: Provided: (1) that the upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by 5 years in the case of women candidates and the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes of Rajasthan; 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. that the upper age limit for persons serving in connection with the affairs of the State in substantive capacity shall "40" years; 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " From the above quoted Rule 11 (B) it is clear that lower age limit is 21 years and upper age limit is 33 years on the first date of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of the application. However, under first proviso the upper age limit of 33 years was relaxed by 5 years in the case of women candidates and the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribes people of the State. Similarly, proviso (6) to the aforesaid Rule 11 (B) makes it clear that the upper age limit for persons serving in connection with affairs of the State in substantive capacity shall be 40 years. Thus, being a Govt. servant she would be entitled to be considered provided she had not completed the upper age of 40. However, she cannot claim further relaxation of 5 years as government servant on the ground that she is also a woman. If we accept this submission of Mr. Parihar then a woman who is a government servant would be entitled to be considered up to the age of 45 years. If we applied this analogy then a woman candidate either from SC or ST would be entitled to 5 years more under proviso (1 ). Thus, a woman belonging to SC or ST or a woman who is government servant either SC or ST would be entitled to be considered up to the age of 50. Forty plus five plus five, 40 as a government servant + 5 as a woman candidate + 5 as a SC or ST person. This stretching too far. Under the circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that while rejecting her candidature, no error was committed by the respondents. She would be either entitled for age relaxation as woman or as a govt. servant. The outer age limit was 40 years, which was already crossed by her when she applied, therefore, she was not entitled to be considered.
(3.) HAVING carefully gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge and for the reasons assigned in it, we are of the opinion that no interference is called for in this special appeal. Accordingly, it fails and is hereby dismissed. .;