1 D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.442/2006 Samarjeet Bhojak Vs. 1. The Chief Secretary to Government Secretariat, Jaipour. 2. R.P.S.C. Ajmer 3. The Chairman, R.P.S.C., Ajmer. Date : 30.10.2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BALIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Mr. Jaidev Singh for the appellant. Mr. Sidarth Joshi for the respondents. ______ Having heard learned counsel for the parties we do not find any merit in this appeal. As pointed by the Court while issuing notice on 15.9.2006, the petitioner's only grievance is that he has secured the same marks as the person who has been given appointment at the bottom of the list in pursuance of the selection in question. The petitioner's contention was that there is no discernible criteria having nexus with the object sought to be achieved by choosing the date of birth as a criteria for giving appointment in order of seniority in the age of the candidate, obtaining the same marks in descending order. In pursuance of the notice issued, a reply has been submitted that the criteria of seniority in age for giving appointment in case where more than one candidate obtains 2 the same marks, but vacancies available are not enough to offer opportunities to all securing same marks is founded on the basis that the opportunities available for securing services are less with the persons with older age keeping in view the fact that there is almost upper age limit is fixed for eligible candidate then younger person who has more opportunities that can be availed by him for seeking employment in future to justify that where two or more persons are similarly situated, their merit is prepared for the purpose of giving appointment in descending order on the basis of age. We are of the opinion that this criteria does have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved in the light of Article 16 of the Constitution of India which provides that equality of opportunity to be offered to all aspirants in the matter of public employment and is free from any arbitrariness and irrationality. Undoubtedly when the preferences have to be made from two equally situated candidates, particularly in the cases of lower status of employment like clerical or manual jobs, the availability of opportunities of employment at the disposal of the candidates is relevant consideration when one has to make way for another similarly situated person. Giving 3 a fair and equal number of opportunities to all concerned for being considered for public employment is the object behind this criteria. We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no arbitrariness in offering appointment to older person who presently is standing at the same level of the merit as a result of competitive selection but has availability of future opportunities for less period. In that view of the matter, the petitioner's complaint that why another man older in age was preferred to his candidature for the same post when he has got the same marks cannot be sustained. The appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed as we are in agreement with the learned Single Judge. No order as to costs. [ BHANWAROO KHAN ], J. [ RAJESH BALIA ], J. babulal/