1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7057/2008 Manohar Lal Vs. Staet of Raj. & Ors. Date of Order :: 10.12.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr R.S. Choudhary, for the petitioner. ... The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer invited applications from the eligible desirous candidates to participate in Patwar Competitive Examination 2008 conducted for admission to Patwar Schools. The admission in Patwar Training Schools is governed as per Chapter 3rd of Rajasthan Land Revenue (Land Records) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Rules of 1957). According to Rule 272(i) of the Rules of 1957 selection of candidates for admission to the Patwar School as required to be made by a competitive examination to be conducted by the Board by determining yearwise vacancies. Clause (iii) of Sub Rule [4] of Rule 273 of the Rules of 1957 prescribed that the aspirant for getting admission in Patwar School should have minimum age of 18 years and must have not attained the age of 28 years on the first day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of applications. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents conducted last competitive examination for admission to Patwar Schools in the year 1998 and now after a lapse of about ten years the fresh 2 process for admissions is initiated, however, during the intervening period the petitioner has crossed the maximum age limit, therefore, non-granting of relaxation to the persons who have crossed the maximum age limit, as in the case of petitioner is arbitrary. The age limit for such candidates should have been relaxed to protect their right to be considered for appointment. Presently, age of the petitioner is of 38 years. It is asserted by learned counsel for the petitioner that sub- rule (iii) of Rule 273 of the Rules of 1957 is mandatory by nature, and therefore, the respondent should have conducted the competitive examination yearwise and due to any inaction or error on their part the petitioner can not be deprived from his valuable right to be considered for admission to Patwar School which ultimately results into appointment as Patwari. An alternative argument is also made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the age limit given under rule 273 is causing undue hardship to the petitioner because of inaction on the part of respondents, therefore, atleast one time relaxation is required to be given by the respondents. Heard counsel for the petitioner. Sub-rule (iii) of Rule 273 of the Rules of 1957 prescribes that, “the competitive examination shall be held ordinarily every year at all the district headquarters or at such other places as the Board may decide. 3 The syllabus of the examination shall be as given in Schedule I.” The rule aforesaid prescribes for yearwise holding of competitive examination, however, it also makes clear that it is a normal course which is required to be adopted. It no where prescribes that failure to hold such examination in specific year will create any right in favour of any person for seeking any relaxation contrary to the statute. The petitioner may have crossed the maximum age limit after year 1998, however, a statutory age age ceiling is prescribed under Clause III of sub-rule 4 of Rule 273 of the Rules of 1957 and that can not be ignored on the count that the respondents failed to hold examination as per sub- rule (iii) of Rule 273 for some years. It is also pertinent to note that under proviso to Clause (iii) of sub-rule 4 of Rule 273 certain eventualities are given for extending age relaxation, however, that nowhere prescribes for granting relaxation in maximum age limit for the persons who have crossed age ceiling because of non-holding of competitive examination. In view of whatever said above I do not find any merit in this petition for writ. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR), J. Jgoyal '