- (1.) THESE intra-court appeals, arising out of the common order dated 09.05.2012 as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the respective writ petitions, have been considered together; and are taken up for disposal by this common order. Briefly put, the relevant background aspects of the matter are as follows: The petitioners-appellants made the applications in response to the advertisement dated 13.02.2008 as issued by the respondent Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Corporation') for recruitment to the post of Technical Helper. However, the applications made by the appellants came to be rejected on the ground of they being over- aged for the purpose of the recruitment in question. The age-limit with admissible relaxation was stated in the advertisement in question in the following terms:- ...[vernaculam text ommited]...... The petitioners-appellants, being in the age group of 35-38 years and being admittedly over-aged in relation to the advertisement in question, submitted before the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions that other service rules carried the provisions for relaxation of age-limit and, thus, the respondents ought to have provided for such relaxation in relation to the persons like the petitioners, particularly when the vacancies on the post of Technical Helper had not been determined for several years. The respondents in their reply, while opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners-appellants, inter alia, pointed out that the posts of Technical Helper were indeed advertised in the years 2006, 2007 and 2008 and, therefore, the contention was not correct that the vacancies had not been advertised year-wise.
(2.) THE learned Single Judge found no reason to grant the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petitions for there being no provision of relaxation of upper age-limit in the relevant rules/regulations of the respondent-Corporation. The learned Single Judge, inter alia, observed as under:- "After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the firm opinion that as per the respondents' reply the posts of Technical Helper were advertised in the years 2006, 2007, 2008, therefore, on this ground the petitioners are not entitled for seeking relaxation in the upper age-limit. It is also required to be observed that if any provision is existing for relaxation of age in other services of the State that cannot be a ground for directing the respondents to grant relaxation in upper age-limit if relaxation is not provided in the relevant rules/regulations by the respondent Corporation. Admittedly, the petitioners in the above writ petitions have crossed the upper age limit and there is no specific provision for relaxation in upper age-limit and vacancies were regularly advertised as and when occurred, therefore, no direction can be issued in the present case. In this view of the matter, I see no reason to interfere in the matter." Seeking to question the order aforesaid, the learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants contended that the respondent- Corporation is an undertaking of the State Government and the provisions in respect of upper age-limit and relaxation should have been applied at par with the provisions made by the State Government for different service rules. In particular, the notifications as issued by the State Government on 25.06.2004 (Annex.8) and 23.09.2008 (Annex.9) have been referred whereby the State Government granted age relaxation in relation to the cases where recruitment had not taken place for any particular year. The submissions, in our opinion, do not make out a case for interference in the writ jurisdiction in these cases; and the learned Single Judge cannot be said to have erred in dismissing the writ petitions.
(3.) IN the case of Prem Ratan Modi Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SAW No.383/2012, decided on 17.08.2012, this Court took note of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. Vs. U.P.Public Service Commission & Ors.: (2006) 9 SCC 507; and Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Smt.Anand Kanwar & Ors.: Civil Appeal No.52/1993, decided on 08.02.1995 as under:- "In Malik Mazhar Sultan's case (supra) even when emphasizing on the requirement of timely determination of the vacancies and timely appointments in relation to the U.P. Judicial Services, so far the age requirement was concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: - "17. The present controversy has arisen as the advertisement issued by PSC stated that the candidates who were within the age on 1st July, 2001 and 1st July, 2002 shall be treated within age for the examination. Undoubtedly, the excluded candidates were of eligible age as per the advertisement but the recruitment to the service can only be made in accordance with the rules and the error, if any, in the advertisement cannot override the Rules and create a right in favour of a candidate if otherwise not eligible according to the Rules. The relaxation of age can be granted only if permissible under the Rules and not on the basis of the advertisement. If the interpretation of the Rules by PSC when it issued the advertisement was erroneous, no right can accrue on basis thereof. Therefore, the answer to the question would turn upon the interpretation of the Rules." (emphasis supplied) Moreover, in Anand Kanwar's case (supra), even while noticing that the recruitments were not held during the years 1983 to 1989, the Hon'ble Supreme Court said,- "Be that as it may, the High Court was not justified in taking the clock back to the period when unfilled vacancies were existing and holding that since the respondent was eligible on the date when vacancies fell vacant, she continued to be so till the time the vacancies are filled. Due to inaction on the part of the State Government in not filling the posts year-wise, the respondent cannot get a right to participate in the selection despite being over-aged." (emphasis supplied)";