CW 3169/08 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3169/08 Navneet Saharia Versus State & Anr. DATE OF ORDER : 21/05/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, for petitioner *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner seeking permission for his participation for the post of Hostel Superintendent which has been advertised by the Commission in pursuance of advertisement Ann.2 dated 15th December, 2007. As per Clause 6 of advertisement, the age of applicant is to be considered as 01/01/09 which should not be less than 21 yrs. and more than 35 yrs. As per petitioner's date of birth (1st October, 1973) undisputedly he became over age on 01/01/09 and has crossed 35 yrs. Main bone of contention of counsel for petitioner is that vacancy has not been earlier advertised by the respondents when he was eligible under the rules. Apart from it, as per Clause 1 of the advertisement, out of total vacancies advertised, 225 vacancies were available with the respondents before October 10, 2002. As such, his right of consideration against earlier vacancy could not be defeated merely because the respondents have failed to advertise the vacancy at the relevant point of time, thus, in these circumstances, he should be considered to be eligible for participation in the process of selection under the scheme of rules. CW 3169/08 [2] The post of Hostel Superintendent is filled by direct recruitment and so far as age is concerned, it is always to be looked into as 1st January of the year following the date of advertisement. Since last date of application form in the instant advertisement is 24th January, 2008 and accordingly, the age of applicant has been looked as on 01/01/09 and while making open selection, certainly eligibility of the applicant has to be looked into in terms of advertisement which should always be in consonance with the scheme of rules. Merely because the vacancies were not advertised earlier by the respondents that will not hold the petitioner to be eligible in respect of the advertisement in question. As regards break-up of vacancies referred to in Clause 1 of October 10, 2002 or of thereafter, is not relevant so far as examining the age of applicant is concerned. Counsel further submits that atleast he may be granted permission to make representation to the State Government for seeking relaxation. If such representation is submitted, respondents are always free to examine the same in accordance with law. Consequently, this court finds no substance in the writ petition, the same stands dismissed. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA3169CW2008 21-5.doc