- 1 - S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6919/2003 (Kheema Ram vs. RPSC & Ors.) DATE OF ORDER : 6/5/2008 HON'BLE JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr.Kamal Dave, for the petitioner. Mr.J.P.Joshi, for the RPSC In this case petitioner is claiming age relaxation of 15 years of 15 years for considering his candidature for the post of Head Master. According to petitioner, he was initially appointed as Teacher Gr.II in accordance with Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 and he was promoted on ad hoc basis as Schoo Lecturer under Rule 27 of the Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1970. The case of petitioner is that Rajasthan Public Service Commission invited applications to fill up 529 posts of Head Masters and petitioner being eligible as per his academic qualifications filed application in pursuance of advertisement issued by the RPSC and also claimed relaxation in age by 15 years which was provided in the advertisement for members of Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971. However, candidature of petitioner was rejected on the ground that on the last day for filling up the application form for recruitment on the post of Head Master, petitioner was working on the post of School Lecturer on urgent temporary basis and - 2 - said promotion was made in accordance with Rule 27 of the Rules of 1970. According to petitioner, respondents have wrongly rejected his claim of age relaxation while treating him as member of Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1970 because he was temporarily promoted under Rule 27 of the Rules of 1970 on the post of School lecturer and persons appointed on urgent temporary basis cannot be treated as substantively appointed under the Rules of 1970 and petitioner is holding substantive post of Teacher Gr.II. In this case petitioner is claiming his right of consideration against vacancies advertised in the year 2000-2001 for which process of selection is already completed, therefore, at this stage no order can be made for considering his candidature. However, it is made clear that petitioner was promoted on urgent temporary basis on the post of School Lecturer in accordance with Rule 27 of the Rules of 1970 and that appointment does not create any right in favour of petitioner to treat him as member of Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1970 because an employee can be treated as member of particular service Rules when he is appointed substantively under the said Rules. In this case, petitioner was promoted on urgent temporary basis under Rule 27 of the Rules of 1970, therefore, in my opinion, age relaxation was wrongly denied to the petitioner while treating him member - 3 - of Rajasthan Education Service Rules, 1970. In the aforesaid circumstances, it is held that petitioner was entitled for age relaxation but it was not granted erroneously by the RPSC. It is also admitted fact that process of selection is over and all the posts are filled up and at initial stage by passing order dated 15/12/2003 petitioner was permitted to appear in interview for the post of Head Master provisionally but he did not avail the interim relief, therefore, in my opinion no relief of consideration of his case can now be granted because process of selection is over. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. pankaj baweja