CW 7278/06 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7278/06 Jitendra Kumar Versus The Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 10/02/2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. B.L. Sharma, for petitioner Mr. Pawan Sharma for Mr. Manoj Sharma, for respondents *** Instant petition has been filed by petitioner with the grievance that despite he was placed in the provisional select list prepared by the respondents for the post of Sweeper, the respondents have arbitrarily denied him appointment. Respondents issued advertisement No.1/95 dt.14th July, 1995 inviting applications for appointment to the post of Sweeper in the regular pay scale of 750-940. However, age under the advertisement was required to be looked into as on 1.1.95 in terms of R.7 of Rajasthan Municipalities [Class IV] Service Rules, 1964. Petitioner being eligible in terms of Scheme of Rules submitted his application and in the provisional list prepared by the respondents his name was placed at No.174. However, upto S.No.213 applicants were considered for appointment. CW 7278/06 [2] However, petitioner was denied appointment on the premise that on 1.1.95 he was under age, as such, was not eligible to be considered for appointment under the Scheme of Rules. Counsel for petitioner submits that condition of age as referred to under the advertisement dt.14th July, 1995 was in contravention of the R.7 of the Rules, 1964 and age infact was to be looked into on the first day of January following the date of application which was in the facts of instant case should have been 1.1.96 on which petitioner had completed 18 yrs. and thus, the premise on which he has been denied from consideration for appointment is not legally sustainable. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition wherein it has been specifically averred in Para 5 that upto S.No.213 candidates were given appointment. However, petitioner was at S.No.174, but being under age on 1.1.95 was not given appointment and that was the only cause for which appointment was denied to him for the post of Sweeper in the cadre of Class IV and appointments are to be made on the post in question in accordance with Rules, 1964. CW 7278/06 [3] I have heard counsel for parties and perused the material on record. R.7 which pertains to eligibility in regard to age of the applicant, relevant for the present purpose is reproduced as under: 7. Age. A candidate for direct recruitment must have attained the age of 18 years and must not have attained the age of 33 years on the first day of January following the date of applications Provided that.- (i) the upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by 5 years in the case of candidate belonging to SC or ST. (ii) the upper age limit for ex- servicemen shall be 50 years. (iii) the upper age limit for reservists, namely the defence service personnel transferred to the reserve shall be 50 years. (iv) the upper age limit may be relaxed upto 10 years, with the prior written approval of the State Government in any exceptional case or in respect of post requiring technical qualifications. In the instant case, advertisement was issued by the respondents on 14th July, 1995 and according to R.7 age was to be looked into on the first day of January following the date of application which in the instant case should have been 1.1.96 and indisputably if age of petitioner CW 7278/06 [4] would have been looked into as per R.7 of the Rules, 1964 he was within age and has crossed 18 yrs. on 1.1.96 – as a consequence whereof, being eligible and placed in the select list prepared by the respondents at No.174 and upto S.No.213 candidates were given appointment. In these circumstances, denial of appointment to the petitioner was arbitrary and so also in violation of R.7 of the Rules, 1964. Advertisement issued by the respondents has to be in conformity with the Scheme of Rules and if condition of eligibility was in violation of the Rules, ultimately scheme of rules will prevail and not the condition incorporated under the advertisement. Consequently, writ petition stands allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the petitioner for appointment on the post of Sweeper in pursuance of advertisement No.1/95 dt.14th July, 1995. Necessary orders be passed within three months. No costs. [AJAY RASTOGI], J. FRBOHRA7278CW06 10-2.doc