Adarsh Kishore Sharma vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This petition has been filed with the prayer that the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner to the post of Lab. Technician pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.5.2011 issued under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Rules, 1965 (hereafter 'the Rules of 1965').

The case of the petitioner is that 260 posts of Lab. Technician under the Rules of 1965 were advertised on 25.5.2011. The petitioner with requisite eligibility applied to be appointed as one. It has been submitted that however the petitioner having attained more than 35 years of age on 1.1.2012, was sought to be excluded from consideration for appointment to the post in issue. It has been submitted that the petitioner was born on 13th June, 1976 and as of 1.1.2012 - the relevant date in the advertisement for reckoning the minimum and maximum age - was 35 years, 6 months and 19 days and hence over-age by 6 months, 19 days. That period was however to be overlooked under the amendment to the Rules of 1965 by the respondents themselves in view of the fact that the advertisement for appointment of Lab. Technicians issued on 25.5.2011 was subsequent a two year's break despite vacancies to the post obtaining in the interregnum. During this delay the petitioner exceeded the upper age limit of 35 years simplicitor provided for under the Rules of 1965 for appointment as Lab. Technician. It has been submitted that Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel (A-Group-II) issued Notification No. F.7(6) DOP/A-II/2008, Jaipur on 23.9.2008 amending various service Rules. That amendment provided that 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 not overage with reference to the maximum age otherwise provided under the Rules by more than 3 years. The said amendment also applies to the Rules of 1965 in respect of the maximum age requirement.

It has been submitted that the petitioner is mere 6 months 19 days over-age viz-a-viz the maximum age of 35 years, as provided for under the Rules of 1965 and the advertisement dated 25.5.2011. This period was well within the 3 year's relaxation to which the petitioner was statutorily entitled under the amendment of 2008 to the Rules of 1965 in respect of maximum age in situations where earlier recruitment to the vacant posts in issue had not taken place. It has been submitted that in the circumstance, the petitioner is entitled to a direction to the respondents that he be treated as within age for appointment to the post of of Lab. Technician pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.5.2011 and be issued order of appointment in terms of his merit.

Reply to the petition has been filed. In para 1 thereof it has been submitted that the petition has been rendered infructuous as the petitioner has since been given appointment on the post of Lab. Technician pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.5.2011.

None has appeared for the petitioner to controvert the averment made in para 1 of the reply that the petitioner has been appointed to the post of Lab. Technician pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.5.2011.

With the petitioner's appointment to the post of Lab. Technician. as stated in respondent-Department's reply relief sought for in the petition having been granted, this petition has been rendered infructuous. It is accordingly disposed of.