LAKSHMANAN, CJ. - (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE present appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 15. 7. 1997 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in the writ petition filed by the appellant. The appellant appeared in Rajasthan State & Subordinate Service Combined Competitive Examination, 1994, initially in preliminary examination in which he was declared successful and was permitted to appear in the main examination which was held from 26. 12. 1996 to 10. 1. 1997 and in which he appeared with Roll No. 205986. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, respondent No. 2, withheld the result of the appellant of his main examination of 1994 in which he appeared and rejected his candidature without affording him any opportunity vide communication dated 1. 5. 1997 on the ground that he had become over-age. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant, in fact, was permitted to appear in main examination in 1994 and no objection was raised but, at later stage when the Commission was going to declare the result of the successful candidates of main examination on 3. 5. 1997, his result was withheld and communicated with the above mentioned decision that on account of his being over-aged, his candidature stands rejected. The appellant filed a writ petition before this court which was rejected by the learned Single Judge on 15. 7. 1997 on the ground that for candidates who are appearing against non-gazetted employee quota, the maximum age limit is 40 years and the appellant has crossed the same, thus, he is not eligible to appear in the ensuing examination for 1994. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15. 7. 1997 holding ineligible the appellant to appear in the examination, the above appeal has been preferred by the appellant. It is submitted by Mr. Ajay Rastogi, learned counsel for the appellant, that the learned Single Judge has not noticed that 40 years is maximum age limit prescribed for employees appearing against non-gazetted employee quota in the Rajasthan State & Subordinate Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 1962. In fact, Rule 4 (2) (ii) of the Scheme of the Rules of 1962 lays down the condition of eligibility for non-gazetted employees category but that does not rule out the age of candidates who are appearing in the Combined Competitive Examination against the direct recruitment quota as approved under Rule 11-B of the Rules of 1962 which itself commences with non-obstinate clause. Meaning thereby, the age of candidates appearing in the examination irrespective of the category which he has chosen, is required to be examined strictly in accordance with the Rule 11-B of the Rules of 1962 in the category in which he has appeared. Meaning thereby, Rule 4 (2) (ii) has to be read with Rule 11-B which clearly postulates that the members of Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe will get relaxation of 5 years. Meaning thereby, the members of Scheduled Caste/schedules Tribe appearing in the combined competitive examination as non-gazetted employee candidate, their upper age limit will be 45 years and not 40 years as prescribed under Rule 4 (2) (ii) of the Rules of 1962. It is further submitted that every member of Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe appearing in the examination is entitled to get benefit of 5 years than the candidate of general category. Thus, the finding of the learned Single Judge in respect of the age is mis-interpretation of the Rules and such finding, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant also further argued that this court has not appreciated the Scheme of Rules of 1962 in right perspective. Various other categories which are entitled to get relaxation are covered under rule 11-B of the rules but while granting relaxation to various categories, the rules making authorities have put a barrier that no one will cross 50 years of age as per rule 11-B. Meaning thereby, Rule 11-B, being special rule which only deals with the age of the candidates who are appearing in the examination and if there is any other rule in the scheme of Rules of 1962, if permits to take note of 50 years, will be contrary to Rule 11-B and thus, the age limit which is prescribed for the candidates who are appearing as general category is 21 to 33 years and likewise for the candidates appearing against N. G. E. quota, the age limit is 25 to 40 years and thus, the candidates who are appearing as an open market and are member of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled Tribe, their age will be construed to be 33 + 5 as an open market as provided under Rule 11-B (1) of the Rules of 1962 which will be 40 + 5 = 45 years which has not been examined by the learned Single Judge in the right perspective. For better appreciation of the case put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant, it is beneficial to reproduce Rule 4 in its entirety and Rule 11 (b) of the Rajasthan State & Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment By Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1962. The same is reproduced as under: "rule-4. Combined Competitive Examination for State and Subordinate Services:- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any rule governing direct recruitment through the agency or the Commission to the posts in State and Subordinate Services mentioned respectively in Schedule-I and Schedule-II. Direct recruitment to such posts shall be by a Combined Competitive Examination to be conducted by the Commission in accordance with these rules. Provided that 7% of the available vacancies in the State Services to be filled in by direct recruitment shall, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2), be reserved for candidates, who are not-gazetted employees of the Government, Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads. The above reservation shall be determined in accordance with the roster prescribed by the Commission. (2) In order to be eligible to compete at the combined competitive examination, an employee referred to in sub-rule (1), must satisfy the following conditions, namely:- (i) Educational Qualifications :- He must hold a degree in Arts, Science, Commerce or Agriculture of a University established by law in India or of foreign University declared by Government in consultation with the Commission to be equivalent of a degree of a University established by law in India. (ii) Age:- He must have attained the age of 25 years and must not have attained the age of 40 years on the first day of January next following the "last date fixed for receipt of applications". (iii) Experience:- He must have completed not less than five years of service (whether officiating or substantive, on the 1st day of January next following the "last date fixed for receipt of applications". (iv) Chances in the Examination :- He shall not be allowed to avail of more than "three" chances under this rule. (v) Eligibility :- He must not be eligible to appear in the examination as an open market candidate. In filling the vacancies so reserved, candidates who are employees shall be eligible for appointment in the order in which their names appear in the list irrespective of their relative marks as compared with other candidates. If a sufficient number of candidates who are employees are not available for filling all the vacancies so reserved, the remaining vacancies shall be filled by appointment by other candidates in the list. Rule-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 in 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 Castes and the Scheduled Tribes of Rajasthan; (2) that upper age limit mentioned above shall not apply in the case of an ex-prisoner who had served under the Government on a substantive basis on any post before conviction and was eligible for appointment under the rules; (3) that the upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by a period equal to the term of imprisonment served in the case of an ex-prisoner who was not over age before his conviction and was eligible for appointment under the rules; (4) that the uper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by a period equal to the service rendered in the N. C. C. in the case of Cadet Instructor and if the resultant age does not exceed the prescribed maximum age limit by more than three years, they shall be deemed to be within the prescribed age limit; (5) that the upper age limit for the reservist namely the defence personnel transferred to the reserve, and the ex-service personnel shall be 50 years; (6) that the upper age limit for persons serving in connection with the affairs of the State in substantive capacity shall be 40 years; (7) 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 even though they have crossed 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; (8) that no relaxation or concession contained in the above provisos shall be allowed to a candidate who has already attained the age of 50 years on the first day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of applications; (9) if a candidate would have been entitled in respect of his age to appear at the examination in any year in which no such examination was held, he shall be deemed to be entitled in respect of his age to appear at the next following examination; (10) that there shall be no age limit in the case of widows and divorce women. Explanation :- That in the case of widow, she will have to furnish a certificate of death of her husband from the competent authority and in case of divorce she will have to furnish the proof of divorce. (11) that the upper age limit for persons serving in connection with the affairs of panchayat samities and zila parishads in substantive capacity for the posts in subordinate services, shall be 40 years; (12) that the upper age limit for persons serving in State Public Sector Undertakings in substantive capacity shall be 40 years. " The case put forward by the appellant was contested by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, respondent No. 2, by filing a detailed reply to the appeal. ;