PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs: "(a) The result declared by the respondents dated 05.10.2015 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (b) A fresh result may be declared excluding the names of all the candidates who are ineligible for the post of PTI Grade III. (c) the respondents may kindly be directed to revise the result after excluding all ineligible candidates and if the petitioners names figures in the list, they may be given appointment with all consequential benefits. (d) The respondents may kindly be directed to publish waiting list in the present recruitment. (e) The costs of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioners. (f) Any other appropriate writ or order or direction which is favourable to the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted to the petitioner."
(2.) Learned counsel for both the parties agree that the controversy is covered by the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court at Jaipur Bench in Ganesh Narayan Mali and Ors. v. State and Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 340/2016 alongwith other analogous matters, decided on 02.06.2016) , relevant portion of which reads as under:- "We would like to take note of certain facts for examining the present issue and we find that an omnibus amendment was made vide amendment Notification dated 23.09.2008 which may be relevant for the present purpose and we consider it appropriate to quote the said Notification dated 23.09.2008 by which omnibus amendment has been made, which reads ad infra:- "If a candidate would have been entitled in respect of his/her age for direct recruitment in any year in which no such recruitment was held, he/she shall be deemed to be eligible in the next following recruitment, if he/she is overage by more than 3 years." Keeping in view the amendment Notification dated 23.09.2008, we find that after the present amendment Notification, the advertisement came to be notified by the authority and the cut-off date for submission of application form was 15.01.2012 and that being so u/R.10 of the Rules, 1971, age is the first day of January following the last date fixed for the receipt of application and that came to be looked into as on 01.01.2013. The candidates who have participated in the selection process, pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.12.2011 and those who are within the age as on 01.01.2013 were considered eligible and within age and after the selection process, pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.12.2011 was completed, the present selection process came to be initiated by the Commission vide advertisement dated 18.09.2013 holding selections for the post of PTI Gr.II and Gr.III and the eligibility in regard to the age has to be determined as on 01.01.2014 u/R.10 of the Rules, 1971. Thus, the candidate who had participated, pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.12.2011 are considered eligible upto 01.01.2013 as regard age is concerned and they had an opportunity to participate in the selection process in the previous advertisement dated 14.12.2011. The amendment Notification dated 23.09.2008 in the scheme of Rules, 1971 envisage that an opportunity to the candidate to participate in the selection process of direct recruitment in any year, if recruitment has been held, be provided by granting him relaxation by one year and he may be considered to be eligible in the next following recruitment year but with a rider that he will become overage by more than three years. In the instant case, the candidates who have participated in the previous advertisement dated 14.12.2011, such candidate were considered to be eligible as regard age is concerned upto 01.01.2013 and were permitted to participate in the selection process and in subsequent advertisement impugned herein dated 18.09.2013 those who were eligible as on 01.01.2014 were permitted to participate in the selection process. Thus, none of the candidate was deprived on account of age and all the candidates who were eligible as on 01.01.2012, 01.01.2013 and 01.01.2014 fair opportunity to participate in the selection process has been afforded to them and the object and purport of omnibus amendment Notification dated 23.09.2008 in fact has been fulfilled in the selection process which has been initiated by the Commission, pursuant to the advertisement dated 18.09.2013. The submission made by the counsel that since the last advertisement was published in 2011 and no recruitment was initiated in 2012, as such, they are entitled to get relaxation in age at least by one year and as observed by the ld.Single Judge, in our considered view, the submission made is without substance for the reason that as per R.10 of the scheme of Rules, 1971, the age is always to be looked into as on 1st day of January following the last date fixed for receipt of application and the object behind is that no one should be deprived from participating in the selection process and this being the object of the Notification dated 23.09.2008, in the facts and circumstances of the present case has been fulfilled for the reason that selection process which was initiated pursuant to the earlier advertisement dated 14.12.2011, the last date of submission of application was 15.01.2012 and according to R.10 of the Rules, 1971, age of the candidate was to be looked as on 01.01.2013. Thus, all the candidates who are within age upto 01.01.2013 were permitted to participate in the selection process and by the subsequent advertisement dated 18.09.2013 with which we are presently concerned, the candidates who are eligible as on 01.01.2014 were considered eligible to participate in the selection process. Thus, the candidates who were eligible as on 01.01.2012 or 01.01.2013 or 01.01.2014, fair opportunity has been afforded to each of them. Thus, there is no year in which the candidates have been deprived from participating in the selection process on account of being overage, pursuant to the advertisement in question and the view expressed by the ld.Single Judge that since there was no advertisement in the year 2012, as such, they are entitled to relaxation of one year, in our considered view, is sustainable in law and in conformity with the amendment Notification dated 23.09.2008 and scheme of Rules, 1971. Thus, in our view that the issue No.11 which has been decided by the ld.Single Judge in holding that the candidates are entitled to get relaxation of one year for the reason that no recruitment was held in 2012 is without substance and the finding recorded in regard to the issue No.11 in granting relaxation of one year to the candidates deserves to be set aside. Consequently, we dispose of the instant batch of appeals while upholding the findings recorded by the ld.Single Judge as regard Issue Nos.2, 3, 5, and 10 are concerned and as regards Issue No.11, we set aside the finding recorded by the ld.Single Judge, in the above terms. The respondents are at liberty to proceed further and finalize the process of selection initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 18.09.2013 without any further loss of time. No costs."
(3.) In light of the aforequoted judgment, the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms.;