AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Challenge in the two appeals is to a common judgment dated 20th November, 2006 allowing writ petition filed by the respondent No.1. The
State of Rajasthan and RPSC have filed the two appeals.
The respondent was claiming benefit of relaxation of age to be appointed as a Head Master in the Secondary School. He was initially appointed
as Teacher Grade-III on 14th September, 1985 in the State of Rajasthan and while on probation he thought better to accept appointment under
Kendriya Vidhyalaya on 10th December, 1986. In Kendriya Vidhyalaya he was promoted as a Teacher Grade-II and worked till 28th
November, 1994. Responding to advertisement for being appointed as a Lecturer in Political Science under the State he applied and on being
selected was appointed as Lecturer on 29th January, 1994. In April, 2002 RPSC issued an advertisement inviting applications to fill up posts of
Head Masters. Having the necessary educational qualifications and experience as per Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1970 the
respondent applied but was found to be over-age. In the writ petition filed the respondent claimed benefit of age relaxation on the ground that twin
benefit of he being an OBC and Government Servant be given to him. The learned Single Judge rightly rejected the plea on the ground that benefit
of age relaxation can be claimed under one category and no two. The respondent then argued that whereas members of subordinate service as per
the Rajasthan Education Service Rules were entitled to the benefit of age relaxation for the period recruitments were not made, similar benefit
ought to be granted to the members of the other service. This challenge has also been negated by the learned Single Judge for the reason the vires
of Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Education Service Rules which made applicable said rule only to the notified services was not challenged.
The respondent succeeded on the argument that vacancies had to be filled up in the year of the vacancies and age had to be considered as of
the year of the vacancy. The learned Single Judge found that the selection by direct recruitment was not held for 8 years and thus presumed that
since the vacancies were clubbed there must be a vacancy as of the year 2000 when the respondent was within the age limit.
This view is contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court in C.A. No.52/1993 RPSC vs. Smt. Anand Kanwar & Ors. decided on 8th
February, 1995. Pertaining to direct recruitment the Court has held that the concept of filling up vacancies in the year of the vacancy is not to be
applied.
Learned counsel for the respondent urges that the decision of the Supreme Court reported as 2006(9) SCC 507 Malik Mazhar Sultan & Anr.
vs. UPPSC & Ors. held that even for direct recruitment, if for a particular year no recruitment is held, for the next year benefit of age relaxation has
to be granted. Said decision was dealing with Rule 10 of the applicable rules which so stipulated.
As noted hereinabove, in the instant case the learned Single Judge has held that there was no such rule applicable for the post of Head Master
to be filled up by direct recruitment.
Before terminating the proceedings we note that as a Lecturer the respondent has since been promoted as a Principal which is above the post of
a Head Master.
The appeals are allowed. Impugned order dated 20th November, 2006 is set aside and the writ petition filed by the respondent is dismissed.