- (1.) SINCE controversy involved in these petitions is same and similar, therefore, these petitions are being heard together and decided finally by this common order.
(2.) IT is a case where respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'the Commission') issued an advertisement dated 13.8.2008 for selection to the post of Senior Teacher (Grade-II). Subsequent to the advertisement, a corrigendum was issued on 4.8.2010 in view of the amendment in the educational qualification. A further corrigendum was issued on 3.9.2010. It is stated that petitioners applied for the post on issuance of corrigendums issued by the Commission on 4.8.2010 and 3.9.2010. The petitioners have been treated underage as they did not attain age of 18 years as on 1.1.2009. Learned counsel submit that petitioners should have been treated as eligible treating them to be within age as in the corrigendum dated 4.8.2010, the last date of submission of application was prescribed as 23.8.2010, which was originally kept as 17.11.2008. Referring to Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Services Rules, 1971 (for short 'the Rules of 1971'), the age of the candidates is to be reckoned as on 1st January of the following year to the last date fixed for submission of the application. Since petitioners made their application for the first time pursuant to the corrigendum issued on 4.8.2010, thus their age should have been reckoned as on 1.1.2011. In that case, all the petitioners are within the age. It is stated that pursuant to interim order granted by this court, the petitioners participated in the selection on provisional basis. Learned Additional Advocate General, Mr. S.N. Kumawat, on the other hand, submits that while issuing advertisement on 13.8.2008, it was clearly mentioned that one should not be below the age of 18 years as on 1.1.2009. All the petitioners herein have not attained the age of 18 years as on the crucial date indicated above. The petitioners can yet be considered, if they had applied for the post for the first time subsequent to corrigendum dated 4.8.2010 and before the last date given therein. In that case, their case would be considered strictly as per Rule 10 of the Rules of 1971. However, it may be clarified that if any of the petitioner made application pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.8.2008, then for him crucial date would be as on 1.1.2009 and not subsequent date. With the aforesaid clarification, writ petitions may be disposed of.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for parties and scanned the matter carefully. Respondents issued an advertisement initially on 13.8.2008, however, two corrigendums were thereafter issued on 4.8.2010 and 3.9.2010. In the corrigendum dated 4.8.2010, last date for submission of application was indicated as 23.8.2010. If Rule 10 of the Rules of 1971 is looked into, then crucial date for determination of age for new applicant is to be as on 1st January of following year to the last date fixed for submission of application. Accordingly, petitioners cannot be rendered underage, however, this is subject to condition that they had submitted application for the first time subsequent to the corrigendum dated 4.8.2010. To clarify the aforesaid, if any of the petitioner made application pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.8.2008, then his age would be determined as on 1.1.2009 taking note of the last date given in the first advertisement because if application was submitted by default, cannot be to their benefit. It is, however, clarified that if petitioners made their application subsequent to corrigendum dated 4.8.2000, then their age may be reckoned on 1.1.2011 and if they had attained the age of 18 years, then be treated as eligible. With the aforesaid directions, these writ petitions so as the stay applications are disposed of. ;