G.S.Singhvi, J. - (1.) The petitioner, who is physically handicapped (orthopaedically handicapped) was born-on 27.12.47. He was substantively holding the post of a Teacher in the education department of the Government of Rajasthan when Rajasthan Public Service Commission (R.P.S.C.) issued an advertisement No. 6/89-90 for 334 posts of school lecturers (Senior Teachers Hindi) along with number of posts of school lecturers in other subjects. The petitioner submitted an application in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement. Although physically handicapped persons are not required to appear at the written examination and are directly called for interview, the petitioner was not called for interview on the ground that he is overage. An intimation dated 9.7.90 was sent to the petitioner by the R.P.S.C. rejecting his candidature on the ground that he has crossed the upper age limit. The petitioner submitted a representation to the R.P.S.C. but his representation was rejected by the Commission vide its letter dated 20.9.90. The petitioner then represented to the Government and stated that he may be given benefit of relaxation in the upper age limit as provided for in the case of physically handicapped persons.
(2.) In pursuance of the direction given by the court the petitioner was interviewed by the R.P.S.C. for the post of school lecturer (Hindi). Result of the interview was produced by the learned Additional Government Advocate in the court in a sealed cover. On opening the sealed cover it was revealed that the petitioner had secured 54 marks in the interview and thus he is a successful candidate, who is entitled to be appointed as school lecturer (Hindi).
(3.) The petitioner's case is that rejection of his candidature on the ground of his having crossed the upper age limit on 1.1.90 is wholly erroneous because vacancies for which the selections have been made relate to earlier years and for a number of years regular selection had not been made for the posts of school lecturers. It has also been argued by the petitioner that he has a right to get the benefit of higher upper age limit prescribed for physically handicapped persons. The R.P.S.C. has not at all considered his candidature in the category of physically handicapped persons. The petitioner has claimed that he is also entitled to the benefit of the upper age limit prescribed for substantive Government servants.;