Anand Singh Rathore @APPELLANT@Hash State Of Rajasthan

          Â

Name of Pet.",Date of Birth,"Age On

01.01.2018","Age On

01.01.2018

Anand Singh Rathore,02.04.1978,Above 39,Above 40

Sudheer Pandya,15.12.1978,Above 39,Above 40

Girish Chandra Bhatt,22.10.1976,Above 41,Above 42

Jayesh Bhatt,16.08.1978,Above 39,Above 40

A bare look at the Advertisement and/or any other Advertisement for the previous years wherein a relaxation of 3 years was granted would indicate,,,

that the vacancies have not been advertised by bifurcating the same based on the year, to which the said vacancies pertain.",,,

The issue involved herein was considered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission & Ors. v. Dr. Narendra,,,

Mohan & Ors.: (1994) 2 SCC 630, wherein it was held as under:-",,,

“It is difficult to accept the contention of Shri Rao to adopt the chain system of recruitment by notifying each year’s vacancies and for,,,

recruitment of the candidates found eligible for the respective years. It would be fraught with grave consequences. It is settled law that the,,,

Government need not immediately notify vacancies as soon as they arose. It is open, as early as possible to inform the vacancies existing or",,,

anticipated to the PSC for recruitment and that every eligible person is entitled to apply for and to be considered of his claim for recruitment provided,,,

he satisfies the prescribed requisite qualifications. Pegging the recruitment in chain system would deprive all the eligible candidates as on date of,,,

inviting application for recruitment offending Articles 14 and 16.â€​,,,

Similarly, in Union of India & Anr. v. Yogendra Singh : 1994 (Suppl.) 2 SCC 226, it was laid down that the applicant must possess the requisite",,,

qualification as per the Advertisement even if the vacancies have arisen prior to the date of Advertisement. It was, inter alia, laid down as under:-",,,

“No candidate who does not possess the currently prescribed qualification and he possess the qualification prescribed earlier, can be said to be",,,

qualified or have any vested right to appointment even against some earlier unfilled vacancies. Every candidate, who aspires to fill any vacancy, must",,,

possess the educational qualification that are then prescribed.,,,

No candidate has a right to claim appointment as a matter of right though he has a right of being considered on the post being advertised for the,,,

reason that selection process gets initiated from the advertisement itself. Thus, the contention raised by the learned counsel for petitioner in this",,,

respect is rejected being preposterous.â€​,,,

In view of the above principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been laid down that there is no necessity for notifying each",,,

years’ vacancy and to find out the eligibility for the respective years, the plea sought to be raised by the petitioners seeking to have different",,,

eligibility alongwith relaxation in age qua the vacancies of year 2017, cannot be countenanced.",,,

In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, the same are, therefore, dismissed.",,,

No order as to costs. Â,,,