SBCWP NO.9311/07. SBCWP NO.9218/06. SBCWP NO.9513/06. SBCWP NO.7682/07. SBCWP NO.9006/07. SBCWP NO.7559/07. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R 1) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9311/07. Baldev Raj Kapoor Vs. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer & Anr. 2) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9218/06. Sargeant Vijay Singh Maan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 3) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9513/06. Sargeant Rampratap Vishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 4) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7682/07. Baldev Singh Kargwal Vs. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer & Anr. 5) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9006/07. Ishwar Singh Vs. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer & Anr. 6) S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.7559/07. Bhagirath Singh Khalia Vs. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer & Anr. SBCWP NO.9311/07. SBCWP NO.9218/06. SBCWP NO.9513/06. SBCWP NO.7682/07. SBCWP NO.9006/07. SBCWP NO.7559/07. 2 Date of Order:- April 1, 2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Harish Maan for the petitioners. Shri S.N. Kumawat, Additional Advocate General for State. ****** BY THE COURT:- In all these writ petitions, petitioners have challenged the action of the respondent- Rajasthan Public Service Commission in not treating them as Ex-Servicemen in the meaning of Rule 2(a) of the Rajasthan Civil Services Absorption of Ex- Servicemen Rules, 1988. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that last date fixed for receipt of applications for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III in the notification issued by the RPSC on 30/10/2006 was fixed as 16/12/2006 but the result of the written examination was declared on 16/3/2007. In SBCWP Nos.9311/2007, 9513/2006 and 9006/2007, petitioners were discharged from defence services prior to declaration of result whereas in SBCWP No.9218/2006, petitioner was discharged from defence services after declaration of result on 31/3/2007. In all cases, except in SBCWP No.9218/2006, petitioners SBCWP NO.9311/07. SBCWP NO.9218/06. SBCWP NO.9513/06. SBCWP NO.7682/07. SBCWP NO.9006/07. SBCWP NO.7559/07. 3 were discharged from defences services prior to cut- off date therefore they should be treated as Ex- Servicemen and all the benefits which are admissible to the Teacher Gr.III be extended to them. 3) Shri S.N. Kumawat, learned counsel appearing for the Rajasthan Public Service Commission opposed the writ petitions and argued that subsequent notice dated 16/3/2007 was issued only for the purpose of extending time limit to furnish B.Ed. Degree/B.S.T.C. Diploma Certificate. It was provided that the candidates who obtained such Degree/Diploma upto the date of declaration of the result of written examination i.e. 16/3/2007, they should furnish the proof thereof before 31/3/2007. This is however cannot be taken as the date of extending eligibility. It cannot be argued that eligibility can be determined upto the date of interview. Even otheriwse, aforesaid notice was issued in conformity with the amendment made in the rules by the government. Admittedly, in the present case, none of the petitioners were discharged from defence service when they applied for appointment and they were all discharged from service after the last date fixed for receipt of application i.e. 16/12/2006. Learned counsel in support of his argument cited the judgments of this Court in Nk/Na Mahaveer Prasad Yadav Vs. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service SBCWP NO.9311/07. SBCWP NO.9218/06. SBCWP NO.9513/06. SBCWP NO.7682/07. SBCWP NO.9006/07. SBCWP NO.7559/07. 4 Commission, Ajmer. & Anr. (SBCWP No.8589/2007) decided on 4/7/2008 and Dharampal Gurjar Vs. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer. & Anr. (SBCWP No.8159/2007) decided on 30/1/2008 and connected writ petitions. 4) Upon consideration of the arguments aforesaid and perusal of the material on record, it is clearly revealed that there is no dispute as far as facts are concerned and none of the petitioners were discharged from defence services when they applied for appointment in response to the notification issued by the RPSC on 30/10/2006. They want that they may be extended the same facility which was given to the candidates appearing or who had appeared in the qualifying examination of B.Ed./B.S.T.C. and their result was yet not declared. Such facility on the same analogy cannot be extended because that was extended to them in an altogether different context which is common to all such competitive examination held by State Public Service Commission and even by the Union Public Service Commission. Here, petitioners are claiming status of being ex-servicemen which will have to be decided on the last date fixed for receipt of the application on which date they were still serving the army. The co- ordinate Bench of this Court while dismissing the writ petition filed by petitioner- Nk/Na Mahaveer SBCWP NO.9311/07. SBCWP NO.9218/06. SBCWP NO.9513/06. SBCWP NO.7682/07. SBCWP NO.9006/07. SBCWP NO.7559/07. 5 Prasad Yadav supra and following the judgment of the Division Bench dated 24/1/2005 passd in Sardar Singh Vs. RPSC Ajmer (DBSAW No.1114/2003 and two connected matters held, as under:- “I have considered contentions made at the bar and perused material on record. Division Bench of this Court in Sardar Singh Vs. RPSC Ajmer (supra), examined Circular issued by Government of India and the scheme of Rules, 1988, particularly after taking note of definition of “ex-servieman” U/r 3(a) of Rules, 1988 and observed that one can be considered as ex-serviceman only after being discharged from armed force. In instant case, petitioner was very much serving in armed force when he submitted applicationi in pursuance of advertisement (Ann.1) particularly on last date (13/07/07) and was discharged thereafter on 01/12/07; as such was not covered within definition of “ex- serviceman” as provided U/r 3(a) of Rules, 1988. In the light of judgment in Sardar Singh Vs. RPSC Ajmer (supra), this Court does not find any merit in instant petition, which consequently fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as costs.” 5) Similar writ petition filed by Dharampal was also dismissed following the ratio of the judgment settled by the Division Bench in Sardar Singh Vs. RPSC Ajmer supra. In view of above, the present writ petitions are liable to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. anil (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ) J.