SBCWP1787/1997 // 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1787/1997 {Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others} Date of Order ::: 27.01.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Abdul Hanif for Shri Mahendra Shah, Counsel for petitioner Shri Hari Barath, Deputy Government Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:- This writ petition was filed by the petitioner way back in the year 1997 praying therein that Clause 4 of the impugned advertisement No.1/97 dated 21.02.1997, issued by the District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Tonk, laying down 01.01.1998 as the date for determining lower and upper age limit of candidates applying in response thereto, be declared ultra vires. By the said advertisement, the Zila Parishad, Tonk advertised 112 vacancies of Teacher Gr.III. Clause 4 thereof provided that a candidate, applying in response to that advertisement, should not be less than 18 years and more than 33 years of age as on 01.01.1998. SBCWP1787/1997 // 2 // The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that according to Rule 8 of the Panchayat Samiti & Zila Parishad Rules, 1959 (for short, 'the Rules of 1959'), the Panchayat Samitis or Zila Parishads are required to determine and intimate to the Commission twice in every year the number of vacancies. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, 1st January and 1st July should have been taken as the date for determining anticipated vacancies, and these should have been the date for determining the minimum and upper age limit of candidate so as to decide whether or not he was within the age limit. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the advertisement dated 23.10.1996 issued by another Zila Parishad i.e. Zila Parishad, Rajsamand, in which 01.01.1997 was taken as the basis for deciding the lower and upper age limit of candidates. The learned counsel submitted that the vacancies advertised vide advertisement dated 23.10.1996 by the Zila Parishad, Rajsamand, were of the year 1996-97, and cut of date was taken as 01.01.1997; whereas the vacancies advertised vide advertisement dated 21.02.1997 (Annexure-1) were of the year 1996-97 therefore the cut of SBCWP1787/1997 // 3 // date ought to have been taken as 01.01.1997 but by the Zila Parishad, Tonk, took it as 01.01.1998 on the basis that the advertisement was issued on 21.02.1997. The learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that cut of date 01.01.1998 was taken on the basis of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1959 which provides that the first of January of the year following the date on which the vacancies are advertised and applications are submitted by candidates, has to be taken as the cut of date for deciding the minimum and upper age limit. In the case of Zila Parishad, Rajsamand, the advertisement was issued on 23.10.1996 and the cut of date was rightly taken as 01.01.1997. The writ petition be therefore dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I find that there is indeed no anomaly so far as two advertisements – one issued by Zila Parishad Tonk and another issued by Zila Parishad Rajsamand are concerned. While the first advertisement was issued on 21.02.1997 and cut of date was rightly taken as 01.01.1998; whereas the second advertisement was issued on 23.10.1996 and the cut of date SBCWP1787/1997 // 4 // was rightly fixed as 01.01.1997. Both the Zila Parishads have simply followed the mandate of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1959. The petitioner even though wants this Court to interpret Rule 8 but, in doing so, has ignored the Rule 10 which, inter-alia, provides that the age limit shall be determined as on first day of January following the date of applications invited against vacancies. The contention that Rule 10 shall have to be construed harmoniously with Rule 8 also cannot be upheld at the cost and causing hurt to the spirit of Rule 10 of the Rules of 1959. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Mohammad Rafiq) J. //Jaiman//