1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ORDER (1) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 3656/07 Ashok Kumar Dayama Vs. State & Anr. (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2616/07 Dilip Singh Mehru Vs. State & Anr. (3) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 2753/07 Raj Kumar Nain Vs. State & Ors. (4) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 2885/07 Rajveer Singh Vs. State & Anr. (5) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 2920/07 Vikas Sharma Vs. State & Anr. (6) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 2924/07 Sanjay Pareek Vs. State & Ors. (7) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 2925/07 Gaurav Vishnoi Vs. State & Ors. (8) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No.2926/07 Teja Ram Vs. State & Ors. (9) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 2936/07 Manu Choudhary Vs. State & Anr. (10) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. NO. 2954/07 Manish Purohit Vs. State & Ors. (11) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 2956/07 Pramod Singh Vs. State & Ors. (12) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 2971/07 Shelandra Mertiya Vs. State & Ors. 2 (13) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. 2975/07 Mahaveer Singh & Anr. Vs. State & Ors. (14) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 3010/07 Dinesh Singh Vs. State & Anr. (15) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 3026/07 Gurpreet Singh Vs. State & Ors. (16) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. 3028/07 Mahesh Pal Singh Vs. State & Anr. (17) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. 3188/07 Sunil Vs. State & Anr. (18) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 3260/07 Bhawat Singh Vs. State & Anr. (19) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 3262/07 Moola Ram & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. (20) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 3282/07 Shyam Pal Singh Vs. State & Anr. (21) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 3366/07 Om Singh Charan Vs. State & Anr. (22) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. NO. 3371/07 Shravan Kumar Vs. State & Anr. (23) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. NO. 3403/07 Deva Ram Vs. State & Anr. (24) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 3524/07 Parvej Khan Moyal Vs. State & Anr. (25) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. NO. 3525/07 Kamlesh Raj Purohit Vs. State & Anr. (26) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. NO. 3540/07 Girdhari Lal Bugalia Vs. State & Ors. (27) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 3541/07 3 Ramniwas Choudhary Vs. State & Ors. (28) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. NO. 3542/07 Ram Chandra Dholiya vs. State & Anr. (29) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 3556/07 Madhu Sudan Sharma Vs. State & Anr. (30) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. NO. 3557/07 Balveer Singh Bhati Vs. State & Anr. (31) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. NO. 3559/07 Sanjay Purohit Vs. State & Anr. (32) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. NO. 3589/07 Vikram Singh Rajpurohit & Anr. Vs. State & Ors. (33) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. NO. 3669/07 Nanda Ram Vs. State & Anr. (34) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. NO. 3761/07 Mahendra Singh Shekhawat Vs. State & Ors. (35) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. NO. 3776/07 Puran Dan Vs. State & Anr. (36) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. NO. 3954/07 Ajay Singh Rathore Vs. State & Anr. (37) S .B. Civil Writ Pet. NO. 3955/07 4 Bagwat Singh Kachhawaha Vs. State & Anr. (38) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. NO. 4036/07 Bhagirath Singh Vs. State & Ors. (39) S.B. Civil Writ Pet. NO. 4214/07 Yogesh Kumar Sharma Vs. State & Ors. Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Date of order : 18.2.2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, J. Mr. Awar Dan Charan for the petitioner. Mr. Tarun Joshi for the respondents. BY THE COURT This bunch of cases involves same question of law therefore, they were ordered to club together. The matters are heard and the same are decided by this common judgment. For the convenience, fact of writ petition No. 3656/06 Ashok Kumar Dayama Vs. State & Anr. Have been taken into consideration. The respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued an advertisement calling for the application for the post of Sub- Inspector, Police vide annexure/4. As per para 6, it was provided that 5 as on 1st January, 2008 a candidate should not have attained the age of 25 years and should not be of the age of less then 20 years. The petitioners herein have challenged the said clause on the ground that the selection on the post of Sub-Inspector was lastly made in the year 2003 and thereafter vide annexure/4 the advertisement has been amended and was issued now in the year 2007 i.e. almost after lapse of 4 years and if anybody reached to the age beyond 25 years in intervening period of for 4 years he/she cannot be debarred from the right of consideration because it is due to the failure of the Government that the selections are not made every year despite of the fact that as per Rules such selection should be conducted each year after determining the vacancies as on 1st April of the each vacancy year. On the aforesaid ground, the action of the respondents has been challenged. It has further been submitted that on the prior occasion when the advertisement was issued in the year 2001, the vacancy up to year 1998 was taken into consideration, therefore, now pursuant to the impugned advertisement, the vacancies under consideration are of 1999 onwards thus their eligibility should be considered after taking note of the corresponding year more so on the previous occasion when the posts were advertised, relaxation in age was given but while issuing the impugned advertisement, no such relaxation is provided. 6 Learned counsel for the respondents urged that the issue involved in the present matter has already been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of RPSC Vs. Smt. Anand Kanwar in Civil Appeal No. 52/93. It has further been submitted that pursuant to the judgment (supra), Division Bench of this court has also dismissed the similar matters and thus, all the grounds raised in the present writ petition are no more available for further adjudication in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue itself, therefore, prayed that the bunch of writ petitions deserves to be dismissed in view of the above submissions. Learned counsel for the petitioners in rejoinder of the reply submitted that even as per rules, the Government was having authority to relax the age taking into consideration the peculiar facts of those case, however, despite of existence of rules, the Government has failed to relax the age despite of the fact that selections have been made after lapse of several years. In that regard reference in 2007 (9) SCC 507 has been made to show that even the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in the appropriate case, the authority can relax the age of a candidate thus, on the strength of the aforesaid judgment, the counsel for the petitioner prayed for grant of such relaxation. 7 I have considered the rival submissions made before me. It is true that as per Rules, vacancies are required to be determined every year so that post can be filled without delay. The fact however remains that in view of the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RPSC Vs. Smt. Anand Kanwar (supra), the grounds raised are no mre open for adjudication by this court more so when even Division Bench has also decided the same issue in regards to the same condition at para(6) of advertisement which is under challenge in these cases. According to the Hon'ble Apex Court if a candidate is age barred on the crucial date so fixed then merely for the reason of delay in holding selection condition pertaining to age ca not be challenged. Hence, ground raised by the learned counsels cannot be accepted. It is however submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that pursuant to the interim order passed by this court, the petitioners have already appeared in the selection and the result has yet to be declared, therefore, a direction can be be given to extend the benefit of age relaxation to the petitioners by issuing appropriate direction to the Government for grant of relaxation in the age, as necessary power exist with the Government. Perusal of the writ petition does not show that any of the petitioner has made representation to the Government to claim 8 benefit of relaxation of age. Thus, in absence of such representation, it is difficult to issue further directions to the Government for grant of age relaxation and the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2007(9) SCC 507 does not provide any assistance, more so when there may be many candidates, like the petitioner who may have not approached this court and must not have appeared in the selection thus, if any such direction is given in favour of the petitioners by this Court, the necessary consequence would be discrimination among the similarly situated candidates. So far as this court is concerned, no direction can be issued for age relaxation. However, if the petitioners so desirous and advised then they would be at liberty to make representation to the Government. In view of the discussion made above, all the writ petitions are dismissed with no order as to cost. (MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI), J. ns.