- (1.) The short controversy raised in the present writ petition pertains to appointment on the post of Personnel Officer/Assistant Personnel Officer. Therein, petitioners are treated overage. It is stated that since no recruitment on the aforesaid posts has taken place in previous years, petitioners crossed the age limit. In view of the aforesaid and taking note of the Rule 9 requiring year-wise determination of the vacancies, petitioners are entitled for relaxation of age or to be treated within age limit.
(2.) To support the arguments, reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Bansilal Jakhar vs. State of Rajasthan and Another,2006 5 WLC(Raj) 625. It is stated that aforesaid judgment is based on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prakash Chand and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 1990 RLR 1. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, A.P. Public Service Commission vs. B. Swapna and Others, 2005 4 SCC 154 has also been referred. In the aforesaid cass, similar controversy was decided favourable to the candidates.
(3.) I have considered submissions of learned counsel and perused the record carefully.;