Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. - (1.) The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that the respondents be directed to relax the upper age limit in case of the petitioner, as he successfully cleared the Rajasthan Teacher Eligibility Test and made to the merit list.
(2.) Admittedly, the petitioner as on today is 43 years old. Maximum age prescribed for recruitment of the Teacher is 35 years. This Court in Suresh Chander Meena & Ors. vs. Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate & Ministerial Services Selection Board & Anr., SBCWP No.14934/2016, while deciding bunch of writ petitions, on 19.11.2016 has held as under:- "In the ultimate analysis, age relaxation for the direct recruitment, if to be granted, would be a matter for the Government to prescribe in the relevant rules; and beyond what has been prescribed, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It appears that in order to mitigate against the hardship likely to be faced by the prospective candidates but at the same time maintaining the balance of the requirements of services, the Government has provided age relaxation upto 3 years by way of notifications of amendment as issued on 23.09.2008. Taking for example the recruitment in question, the maximum age limit as prescribed in the Rules is 35 years and it gets extended to " ""Since the controversy raised is in narrow compass, the learned counsel for the parties without filing rejoinder have prayed that the arguments be heard and writ petitions be decided as competitive examination is scheduled to be held in the near future. The learned counsel for the petitioners have urged that since the Notification dated 23.9.2008 directed various departments of the State of Rajasthan to determine and specify the vacancies qua each year, and since the exercise to this effect was not carried by the State of Rajasthan, taking ratio of law laid in the case of Prakash Chand's case , petitioners be held eligible and be permitted to appear in the competitive examination. It is time to notice case law to answer the question poised before this Court. A Single Judge of this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Bardiya & Ors vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2012 1 WLC(Raj) 301, in respect of the recruitment of Agriculture Officer and Assistant Agriculture Officer where advertisement was issued after eleven years, even though, the vacancies existed, came to conclusion that the age of the candidate cannot be relaxed by the court but to do the same is the sole prerogative of the State Government. The learned Single in case of Pawan Kumar Bardiya held as under:- "13. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submits that advertisement was issued on 5.7.2008 giving out last date of submission of application as 20.8.2008 thus one was required to be within age limit as notified in the advertisement. The petitioners are those who applied for the post knowing it well that they have already crossed the age limit provided under the Rules. If the prayer is accepted then it would result in discrimination as many candidates did not apply for the post in adherence to the Rules treating themselves to be overage. Hence, acceptance of the writ petitions would be to the benefit of those who have not adhered to the Rules. 14. Coming to the notification dated 23.9.2008, it is submitted that it is prospective in nature and cannot have application for the advertisement issued in the month of July having last date to submit application by 20.8.2008 i.e. much prior to the notification amending the Rules. One cannot apply and plead for the benefit of age relaxation anticipating some amendment in the Rules at a later stage. The notification dated 23.9.2008 has no application in the present recruitment even if the age is to be reckoned as on 1.1.2009. The aforesaid issue has already been decided by the Division Bench of this court in the case of "Inder Bhan Singh Gujar v. State of Rajasthan & anr,2001 2 RajLR 168" and Single Bench judgment has otherwise been reported in 1999(1) WLC 141. The present matter is squarely covered by the judgment in the case of Inder Bhan Singh Gujar . 15.Now comes the issue as to whether one is entitled to be treated within age if recruitment has not taken place every year, rather if there is a delay of years together. It is submitted that after judgment of the Division Bench of this court in the case of Prakash Chand when the coordinate Bench took the same view, one of the judgments was challenged before the Apex Court by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and, therein, the view was not approved. It was held that delay in holding recruitment will not entitle a candidate to get benefit of age. The controversy has been settled therein with authoritative pronouncement. 16. Same view was taken by this court in the case of "Dr Pushpa Gupta v. State of Rajasthan & Ors, 2002 2 RajLR 733." In the case of "E Ramakrishnan & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors, 1996 10 SCC 565" it was held that relaxation of age can be granted by the Government and not by the court. 17. Reliance has further been made on the judgment in the case of "Mahesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors, 1998 2 WLC(Raj) 666". The issue of grant of age relaxation further came up for consideration in the case of "Dr Ami Lal Bhat v. State of Rajasthan & Ors, 1997 6 JT 72", wherein, relaxation in age limit was not allowed on wholesome (sic. wholesale) basis but allowed only when public interest element is existing. 18. The Division Bench of this court in the case of "Smt Shashi Kala Dadhich v. RPSC & anr., DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 923/2006, decided the same controversy vide its judgment dated 24th January, 2008. Therein, the court considered earlier judgment in the case of Prakash Chand but considering the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "RPSC v. Smt Anand Kanwar, Civil Appeal No. 52/93, decided on 8.2.1995, held that delay in recruitment by not determining the post every year would not entitle a candidate to get benefit in age bar. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. 19. I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for parties and scanned the matter carefully besides perusing the judgments cited at the Bar. 20. The facts not in dispute are that last recruitment to the post in reference was held in the year 1996 and, thereupon, advertisement has now been issued in the year 2008 thus for intervening period of 11 years, no recruitment was held by the respondents. 21. First question for consideration of this court is as to whether those who were within the age limit during the intervening period of 11 years should be granted benefit in age limit, taking note of the year corresponding to the vacancy. 22. This court in the case of Prakash Chand and Dr. Banshi Lal Dhakar held that a candidate would be entitled to be treated within age if the recruitment did not take place in previous years when the candidate was within age. 23. The Apex Court in the case of Smt Anand Kanwar took a view otherwise than what has been taken by this court. In the case of Smt Anand Kanwar the Apex Court even noticed the reason for treating a candidate to be within age as recorded by the Division Bench of this court, but reversed it. Following para of the judgment in the case of Smt Anand Kanwar is quoted for reference thus - It was not disputed before the High Court that prior to 1988, recruitment to the cadre of Assistant Teachers was made only in the year 1983. Recruitment to the said cadre is by way of direct recruitment and also by promotion. During the period 1983-89 promotions were being made to the cadre, but not direct recruitment was made. The contention raised by the respondent before the High Court was that it was mandatory for the Rajasthan Government to have filled the quota of direct recruits during all those years. It was further contended that had the posts meant for direct recruitment been advertised during the year 1983- 89, the respondent could have applied and may have been selected. She contended that at that point of time, she could not be rejected on the ground of over-age. The High Court accepted the contentions on the following reasoning:-- "......The last advertisement was issued in the year 1983 and this advertisement has been issued in the year 1989 that is after a lapse of about six years and the petitioner has completed her age of 40 years in the year 1986. It has been held in this authority that if year-wise vacancies are not determined and if the advertisements are issued to fill up the vacancies of six years by the one advertisement, then the person's candidature cannot be rejected on that account....." The competent authority cannot avoid this responsibility by sheer inaction or omission and failure on the part of the competent authority cannot be used as a basis for denying eligibility to those who are eligible in a particular year but become ineligible on account of absence of determination of the vacancies..... She could have been denied right of a consideration only if there existed no vacancies till the time she has attained the age of 40 years. If vacancies were existing, she had a right of consideration and consequently the petitioner who has been allowed to appear in the interview under the orders of the Court, her result of the interview be declared and if she is found suitable for appointment on the basis of the merit that has been assigned to her by the Public Service Commission, she be afforded appointment as a Senior Teacher, which has now been designated as Lecturer in Secondary/Senior Secondary Section). The result be declared within a period of three weeks from today and if she is entitled to be appointed then appointment be accorded to her within 3 months from today." We are of the view that the High Court fell into patent error bordering on perversity in issuing the mandamus on the reasoning quoted above. It is settled proposition of law that the eligibility of a candidate has to be determined on the basis of the terms and conditions of the advertisement in response to which the candidate applies. There is nothing on the record to show that the State Government was in any manner negligent or at fault in not making the direct recruitment during the period 1983-89. 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 continues 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. We, therefore, allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the writ petition filed by the respondent. No costs. 24. Same view was taken by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Smt Shashi Kala Dadhich , wherein, even the judgment in the case of Prakash Chand was considered and, in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Smt Anand Kanwar , detailed judgment was rendered. Para 5, 6 and 7 of the said judgment is quoted for ready reference thus - 5. The direct recruitment to the posts of Lecturer in Hindi, admittedly, is being made under Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 (for short 'the Rules of 1970'). The counsel for the appellant did not dispute that the Rules of 1970 do not have a provision that the candidates who were eligible in a particular year but were rendered in-eligible in the subsequent years, they were to be treated as eligible to appear in the examination irrespective of age requirement in case no examination was held in the particular year in which they were eligible. We are afraid, for want of any provision in the Rules of 1970, the decision of the Division Bench in the case of Prakash Chand cannot be applied to the present fact situation. 6. We may now refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Anand Kanwar. That was a case where Anand Kanwar applied for the post of Senior Teacher in the year 1989 pursuant to the advertisement. At that time she had already crossed the age of 40. She appeared in the preliminary examination conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, "Commission") but at the time of viva-voce she was told that she was not eligible being over-age and her candidature was cancelled. Upon challenge of the cancellation of her candidature before this court, the Division Bench held that the last advertisement was issued in the year 1983 and thereafter the advertisement was issued in the year 1989 i.e. after a lapse of about 6 years. If yearwise vacancies were not determined and if the advertisement was issued to fill the vacancies of six years by one advertisement, then the person's candidature cannot be rejected on that ground. The Division Bench held that competent authority cannot avoid the responsibility by sheer inaction or omission and failure on the part of the competent authority cannot be used as a basis for denying eligibility to those who were eligible in a particular year but became in-eligible on account of absence of determination of vacancies. The consideration of the matter by the Division Bench was held by the Supreme Court bordering on perversity. The Supreme Court held thus: "It is settled proposition of law that the eligibility of a candidate has to be determined on the basis of the terms and conditions of the advertisement in response to which the candidate applies. There is nothing on the record to show that the State Government was in any manner negligent or at fault in not making the direct recruitment during the period 1983-89. 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 continues 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 yearwise, the respondent cannot get a right to participate in the selection despite being over-aged. 7. In the light of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court as afore noticed, we find no merit in the contentions of the counsel for the appellant. The appellant is not entitled to age relaxation as claimed by her." The learned Single of this court further held that since the court cannot make overage candidates eligible, the candidates who have become overage can approach the State Government praying that the rule prescribing age be relaxed qua them. The learned Single Judge held as under:- "29. In the light of the judgment referred to aforesaid, contention of learned counsel for petitioners to treat them within age on the analogy that notification for age relaxation of three years was issued prior to the relevant date for determination of age. In fact, a prudent candidate may not have applied pursuant to the advertisement treating himself to be overage as nobody can expect that subsequent to the last date of submission of application forms, a notification would be issued granting relaxation in age thus acceptance of the plea of the petitioner, would result in discrimination as held by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Inder Bhan Singh Gujar . 30. In view of the aforesaid, even second contention raised by learned counsel for petitioners cannot be accepted. 31. The issue now remains is as to whether petitioners can seek benefit of age relaxation from the State Government as it has power to relax the rules. 32. I have considered the matter and find that the State Government is having power to relax the rules in appropriate cases, thereby petitioners can make a representation to the State Government to extent benefit of age relaxation after making out a case, if such representation has not already been made by the petitioners. 33. It cannot be ignored that the recruitment in the present matter has taken place after 11 years and, during the intervening period, vacancies took place thus those who were within age limit corresponding to the year of vacancy have now become ineligible on account of delay in recruitment. 34. Looking to the aforesaid and other relevant factors, the matter may be considered by the government for relaxation in age. While considering representation of the petitioners, State Government may also keep in mind that they should try to get meritorious candidates so that they may get best talented persons in service. 35. Petitioners have already passed out the selection, though appeared therein pursuant to the interim order of this court. In the case of Abhishek Sharma & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & anr., DB Special Appeal (Writ) No. 731/2007, decided on 22.5.2007, this court issued similar directions to the Government for consideration of representation keeping in mind hardship of the appellant therein. That was also for grant of age relaxation under rule 46 applicable thereunder. This is more so when power to relax the age does not lie with the court but lies with the government only as held by the Apex Court in the case of "E Ramakrishnan & Ors. v. State of Kerala & Ors, 1996 10 SCC 565". 36. Similarly, the Apex Court in the case of "Suraj Prakash Gupta & Ors. v. State of J&K & Ors, 2000 7 SCC 561" also held that powers to relax the rules can be exercised by the government taking into consideration hardship of the candidates, after recording reasons." This issue also came for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur and the learned Division Bench of this Court in the case of Prem Ratan Modi vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., 2012 3 ILR(Raj) 522, held as under:- "18. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Malik Mazhar Sultan and Anand Kanwar, the decision in Prakash Chand's case as rendered by a Division Bench of this Court is of no help to the appellant. 19. The submission as made by the learned counsel for the appellant that limiting the age relaxation only upto 3 years operates contrary to the provisions of the Rules does not carry force. The aspects of yearly determination of vacancy and even yearly holding of recruitment do not ipso facto lead to the position that every person within the age limit as on the date of occurrence of the vacancy or determination of vacancy ought to be treated within the age irrespective of the other provisions of the Rules and irrespective of the time of recruitment. 20. In the ultimate analysis, age relaxation for the direct recruitment, if to be granted, would be a matter for the Government to prescribe in the relevant Rules; and beyond what has been prescribed, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It appears that in order to mitigate against the hardship likely to be faced by the prospective candidates but at the same time maintaining the balance of the requirements of services, the Government has provided age relaxation upto 3 years by way of notifications of amendment as issued on 23.09.2008. Taking for example the recruitment in question, the maximum age limit as prescribed in the Rules is 35 years and it gets extended to 38 years with the relaxation provided. If at all the factor of not holding of recruitment for 13 years is taken into consideration and the relaxation for all the years of not holding recruitment is provided as suggested, it would be something like allowing a person even at about 48 years of age to enter into the service as an LDC. The Government, in its wisdom, if has chosen to restrict the relaxation to 3 years beyond the age as prescribed, it cannot be said that anything unreasonable or irrational has been provided. 21. We need not dilate further on the aforesaid aspect in the present case as the validity of Rules was not in challenge in the writ petition filed by the petitioner. In the existing scheme of Rules, the petitioner was not entitled to the relief as claimed; and hence, the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted in dismissing the writ petition. 22. So far the other submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant regarding relaxation in case of hardship per Rule 49 of the Rules of 1999 is concerned, such an aspect does not appear having been placed for consideration before the learned Single Judge. However, in the interest of justice, it does appear appropriate to observe in this regard that if at all the petitioner-appellant makes, within two weeks from today, specific representation for consideration of his case on the anvil of Rule 49 and other co-related rules applicable to the case for relaxation in regard to the age, the same may be considered by the respondents in accordance with law; and for that matter, any observations made in this order shall not be of an impediment in independent and objective consideration of such representation. Subject to the observations and the requirements foregoing, this appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. No costs." Another Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Gopal Lal Sharma & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., Manu /RH/1472/2015, held as under:- "3. We have examined the judgment in Prem Ratan Modi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors, 2013 LabIC 1039 (Raj)) , and did not find any such ground, which may require reconsideration by the Court of the judgment, or any such ground has been raised, which may require a reference to a Larger Bench. 4. The coordinate Bench had upheld the proviso on the ground that the age relaxation of 3 years for number of years, can be given for the selections, which were held, despite the provision for determining vacancies, and holding selections for the vacancies every year, and that 3 years relaxation, for that purpose, was sufficient, and does not amount to any arbitrariness or unreasonableness. 5. If the State Government was of the opinion that 3 years relaxation would be sufficient, and that any further relaxation will amount to entry of the persons on advance age in service, no error can be found in the decision taken by the State Government. We find that though the validity of the Rule was not challenged in the judgment in Prem Ratan Modi, 2013 LabIC 1039 (Raj), the reasons given by the coordinate Bench would be valid, even in the challenge of the validity of the Rule. The reasons, for which proviso was added, were examined by the coordinate Bench, and the same reasons were valid for repelling the challenge to the proviso. The Writ Petition is covered by the judgment in Prem Ratan Modi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors, 2013 LabIC 1039 (Raj)) , and is accordingly dismissed." Another Division Bench of this court in Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs. Mahendra Kumar, Manu /RH/1230/2014, upholding the validity of amended rules and relying upon Prem Ratan Modi's case held as under:- "15. In Prem Ratan Modi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors, 2013 LabIC 1039 (Raj)) , the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in RPSC v. Smt. Anand Kanwar and in Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr. v. U.P Public Service Commission & Ors., 2006 9 SCC 507, has refused to grant the benefit of age relaxation to the appellants therein beyond the period as provided in the concerned rules and has held as under : "In the ultimate analysis, age relaxation for the direct recruitment, if to be granted, would be a matter for the Government to prescribe in the relevant rules; and beyond what has been prescribed, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It appears that in order to mitigate against the hardship likely to be faced by the prospective candidates but at the same time maintaining the balance of the requirements of services, the Government has provided age relaxation upto 3 years by way of notifications of amendment as issued on 23.09.2008. Taking for example the recruitment in question, the maximum age limit as prescribed in the Rules is 35 years and it gets extended to 38 years with the relaxation provided. If at all the factor of not holding of recruitment for 13 years is taken into consideration and the relaxation for all the years of not holding recruitment is provided as suggested, it would be something like allowing a person even at about 48 years of age to enter into the service as an LDC. The Government, in its wisdom, if has chosen to restrict the relaxation to 3 years beyond the age as prescribed, it cannot be said that anything unreasonable or irrational has been provided." 16. It appears that the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench in Prem Ratan Modi, 2013 LabIC 1039 (Raj)) has not been applied in correct perspective in the impugned order. 17. In the case in hand, the State Government, in its wisdom, has not provided benefit of age relaxation in the Rules of 1989 looking to the requirement of service in the police department, then it is not open to question the said decision of the State Government by claiming parity with other service rules or with other categories of service. 18. The learned counsel for the appellant is right in arguing that no parity can be claimed by one category of service with other category of service and it is within the domain of the employer concerned that in which category of service, the benefit of age relaxation is to be provided. The benefit of age relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right and, therefore, the claim of the respondentpetitioner for age relaxation in the maximum age limit while claiming parity with other categories of service is not based on sound proposition of law and, therefore, is liable to be rejected. 19. Consequently, the appeal preferred on behalf of the appellant- RPSC is allowed. The impugned order dated 26.08.2013 passed by the learned single Judge in SBCWP No. 7824/2012 is hereby set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent-petitioner is dismissed. Stay petition stands disposed of." The similar view was also reiterated by another Division Bench at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Manish Sharma vs. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Manu /RH/0349/2013, and it was held as under:- "6. As regards the claim for age relaxation too, it remains trite that relaxation can be claimed only if, and to the extent, permissible under the Rules. 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. Anand Kanwar & Ors.: Civil Appeal No. 52/1993, decided on 08.02.1995 as under:- In Malik Mazhar Sultan's case 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. Moreover, in Anand Kanwar's case , 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 yearwise, the respondent cannot get a right to participate in the selection despite being overaged. 7. It was found in the aforesaid case of Prem Ratan Modi that relaxation in age for direct recruitment would be a matter for the Government to prescribe in the relevant rules; and, beyond what had been prescribed, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. In Prem Ratan Modi's case, the claim for providing age-relaxation of 13 years was found beyond the relevant rules and, this Court, inter alia, observed as under:- In the ultimate analysis, age relaxation for the direct recruitment, if to be granted, would be a matter for the Government to prescribe in the relevant Rules; and beyond what has been prescribed, cannot be claimed as a matter of right.... 8. In view of the above, the claim for age relaxation as made by the petitioner could only be rejected. In the result, this writ petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed." Similar view was also reiterated by another Division Bench of this court in Hem Raj Gurhani vs. State of Rajasthan, Manu /RH/1238/2014. In view of settled legal position, which has been propounded by the learned Single Judge in the case of Pawan Kumar Bardiya and various Division Bench of this Court in the cases of Prem Ratan Modi , Gopal Lal Sharma , Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs. Mahendra Kumar , Manish Sharma and Hem Raj Gurhani , this Court has no hesitation to hold that this Court cannot pronounce overage candidates as eligible. Hence, this Court cannot come to rescue of the petitioners. Having held so, this court cannot ignore the rule 38 of the Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971, pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioners. In the reply filed in the case bearing no. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14649/2016 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14803/2016, the respondent no.2 Selection Board has also acknowledged the right of the petitioners to represent to the State Government for relaxation of rules by making the following averment:- "17 xxxxxx xxx xxxx With regard to the rule 38 of the Rajasthan Education Service Rules 1971 petitioners can file representation before the Government for his hardship and Government can decide the representation according to law." The Selection Baord has specifically admitted that the Government has power to relax the rules and therefore, considering the exceptional circumstances and hardship faced by the candidate that the posts were not advertised for a long period of twenty-three years, petitioners/candidates can be relegated to approach the State Government to relax the rules in their favour, which prescribe maximum age. Prayer to relax the rule to make overage candidate/petitioners eligible can be made to State Government by making a representation, as averred by the Selection Board, the respondent no.2, in Para 17 of the replies filed. A Division Bench of this Court in Prem Ratan Modi's case had also permitted the petitioners therein to approach the State Government for relaxation of the rules. Similar liberty was also granted by the learned Single Judge in the case of Pawan Kumar Bardiya . Therefore, in the interest of justice, each petitioner is granted liberty to make representation to the State Government on the anvil of rule 38 of Rules of 1971 and other co-related rules applicable to the case of relaxation with regard to the age. It is ordered that in case the representation is filed by each petitioner in individual capacity within two weeks from today, then the State Government shall take decision upon the representation so filed within a period of four weeks, independently without persuaded by any observation made by this Court. It is further ordered that till the representation to be made by the petitioners is considered by the State Government, the Selection Board respondent no.2 shall accept the application form of the petitioners offline and proceed with the process of recruitment considering the application of each petitioner to be in order. It is further clarified that in case the State Government reject the representations of the petitioner or petitioners, candidature of the petitioner/petitioners shall be cancelled and they shall be at liberty to assail the decision of the State Government. However, in case the State accepts representation and grant relaxation, the respondents shall proceed ahead with the matter. It is further clarified that the court has only ordered that till the decision of the representation, application of the petitioners shall be accepted offline without commenting upon the rights of the State Government to grant or refuse relaxation qua the age of a candidate. In view of above, the present petitions stand disposed of.""
(3.) In view of legal position enunciated in the case of Suresh Chander Meena , which has been reproduced above, this Court cannot come to the rescue of the petitioner. The petitioner if so advised may file a representation to the State Government under rule 296 of Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996.;