1 SBCW NO. 1240/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1240/2009 Manu Chaudhary Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. Date of Order : : 17.02.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. Awar Dan Charan for the petitioner. By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of communication dated 5.2.2009 (Annex.7) and a direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Sub Inspector, Police treating him to be within age limit in pursuance of Annex.3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner applied for the post of Sub-Inspector in pursuance of Advertisement Annex.3 dated 9.4.2007, however, the respondent RPSC has not considered his case for the said 2 SBCW NO. 1240/2009 post and by communication dated 5.2.2009 Annex.7 it has been informed to the petitioner that he is overaged and therefore, his candidature has been cancelled. Indisputably, the age advertised by the respondent RPSC vide Annex.3 for the post of Sub-Inspector is that the applicant as on 01.01.2008 should have attained the age of 20 years and should not have attained the age of 25 years. However, certain exceptions of age relaxations in respect of members of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Class and the applicants who are dependents of Govt. servants dying while in service, Ex. Service Personnel, Released Emergency Commissioned Officer/ Short Service Commissioned Officer etc. At any rate, the petitioner does not fall in any of the exceptional categories providing age relaxation. According to the petitioner himself, the age of the petitioner is 31 years and 6 months as stated in the writ petition. From the documents annexed with the writ petition, the date of birth of the petitioner is 25.6.1977 vide Annex.2, mark-sheet issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan. Thus, on the last date of submission of the application for the said post, the petitioner had already crossed the age of 25 years. 3 SBCW NO. 1240/2009 This controversy came to be considered by this Court in Ashok Kumar Dayama Vs. State and Anr., S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3656/07 and 38 others, decided on 18.2.2008 wherein it has been held that 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 cannot be challenged. In RPSC Vs. Smt. Anand Kanwar in Civil Appeal No.52/93, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it is settled proposition of law that the eligibility of a candidate has to be determined on the basis of the terms and conditions of the advertisement in response to which the candidate applies. It was further held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the High Court was not justified in taking the clock back to the period when unfilled vacancies were existing and holding that since the respondent was eligible on the date when vacancies fell vacant, she continues to be so till the time the vacancies are filled. Due to inaction on the part of the State Govt. in not filling the posts year-wise, the respondent cannot get a right to participate in the selection despite being over-aged. 4 SBCW NO. 1240/2009 Keeping in view the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in RPSC Vs. Smt. Anand Kanwar (supra), in my view, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief prayed for. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore, dismissed. (H.R. PANWAR), J. rp 5 SBCW NO. 1240/2009 S.B.Civil Misc. Stay Petition No. 2265/2009 In S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 1240/2009 Date of Order : 17.02.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. Awar Dan Charan for the petitioner. Since the writ petition itself has been dismissed, the stay petition also stands dismissed. (H.R. PANWAR), J. rp