SBCWP NO.3405/2004. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3405/2004. Bajrang Lal Sharma V/s. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Date of Order : 26/8/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri G.K. Jain for the petitioner. Shri B.L. Awasthi, Additional Government Counsel for the State. Shri S.N. Kumawat for RPSC, respondent No.2. **** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by petitioner-Bajrang Lal Sharma with the prayer that action of the respondents in rejecting his candidature for appointment on the post of Sub Inspector of Police vide order dated 13/5/2004 (Annexure-2) may be held to be illegal and the aforesaid order be quashed and set- aside. 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Sub Inspector of Police pursuant to notification dated 5/11/2001 issued by R.P.S.C. Ajmer. At the time when petitioner applied for such appointment, he was serving the Panchayat Raj Department of the State as Gram Sewak. The government vide notification dated 30/11/1998 has extended the upper age limit for SBCWP NO.3405/2004. 2 government servant upto 40 years in respect of as many as 20 Rajasthan Services to Rajasthan Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, has not been included in the said notification. The action of the respondents is therefore discriminatory because those serving Panchayat Raj Institutions have been held to be serving in connection with the affairs of the State as held by the Division Bench of this Court in Niyaz Mohammed Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and another : RLW 1993(3) Raj. 1461. Hence, it is prayed that respondents may be directed to extend the same benefit to the petitioner as well. 3) Shri B.L. Awasthi, learned Additional Government Counsel appearing for the State and Shri S.N. Kumawat, learned counsel appearing for R.P.S.C. have opposed the writ petition and have argued that benefit of service renderd by the petitioner to the Panchayat Raj Department has already been granted inasmuch as, upper age limit for appointment on the post of Sub Inspector of Police is 23 years and even after grant of relaxation of three years admissible to the government servant, petitioner was found to be over age by 6 months and 3 days. Government has purposely not extended the upper age limit for appoitment on the post of Sub Inspector of Police upto 40 years as was done in so many other State Services because the duties attached to the post of Sub Inspector of Police are entirely different than other SBCWP NO.3405/2004. 3 Services of the State and therefore the age is relevant criterion. Those with advanced age of 40 years, can hardly be considered fit enough to be straightway appointed as Sub Inspector of Police. Since no government servant is given those benefits of extended age, there is no case for discrimination. 4) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as also the aforesaid judgment, I find that there should be no quarrel with the proposition of law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Niyaz Mohammed supra. This is not even contested by the respondents because they have also admitted that the petitioner is entitled for grant of relaxation being treated as serving in connection with the affairs of the State. Their contention is that even after grant of relaxation of three years admissible to the government servant, petitioner is still over age by 6 months and 3 days. The policy of the government in not extending the upper age limit for appointment on the post of Sub Inspector of Police though not under challenge but even otherwise, same cannot be said to be violated because the nature of duties of this post and other State Services referred to in the notification dated 30/11/1998, are qualitatively different. In view of above, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and hence, same is dismissed. SBCWP NO.3405/2004. 4 anil (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.