1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 715/2007. (DHARMENDRA SINGH VS. STATE & OTHERS) DATE OF ORDER : 30.07.2008. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Yashpal Khileree for Mr. G.R. Punia for the petitioner. Mr. Shyam Toshniwal for Mr. N.M. Lodha, AAG. Mr. Tarun Joshi for the respondents. The controversy involved in this petition has already been considered by this Court in the case of Alsa Ram Meghwal vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and another reported in 2006(7) RDD 3890 (Raj) holding as follows: “Rule 4 of the Rules of 1999 provides maximum age limit for non-gazetted employees of Government of Rajasthan to appear in combined competitive examinations and the Rule 13 of the Rules of 1999 provides certain relaxations in maximum age limit beside the normal age criteria to appear in combined competitive examination. By the force of proviso (1) a relaxation to a member of Scheduled Caste is given in the age limit mentioned in substantive provision of Rule 13. The proviso (1) to Rule 13 of the Rules of 1999 in unambiguous terms 2 mentions that upper age limit mentioned above shall be relaxed by five years in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribe of Rajasthan. The age limit mentioned above means the age of 33 years i.e. prescribed in Rule 13 of the Rules of 1999. The age limit for person serving in connection with the affairs of the State in substantive capacity is prescribed as 40 years by proviso (6) to Rule 13, meaning thereby, the non-gazetted employees a class in it irrespective of caste, is already availing a relaxation upto the age of 40 years by force of proviso (6) to Rule 13 read with Rule 4 of the Rules of 1999. The intention of the Legislature to provide relaxation of five years to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe of the Rajasthan is only qua the maximum age limit prescribed for general candidates. Such relaxation is not at all available under the Rules of 1999 to the persons already serving in connection with the affairs of the State in substantive capacity. The maximum age limit provided under proviso (6) to Rule 13 of the Rules of 1999 for the candidates serving in connection with the affairs of the State in substantive capacity is also required to be read with the age limit prescribed under sub-rule(2) of Rule 4 of the 3 said Rules. It is relevant to note that Rule 4 also applies to the candidates serving the State of Rajasthan in connection to its affairs as it is also having application for employees of Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads. If the contention of the petitioner is accepted then the maximum age limit prescribed under sub- rule(2) of Rule 4 shall also be enlarged, though the legislature confined it within the age limits of 25-40 years of age. No interpretation of statute can be made contrary to a statute and against the intention of the legislature that enacted such statute.” In view of law laid down by this Court in the case of Alsa Ram Meghwal (supra), no relief as claimed by the petition can be given. The petition for writ, therefore, stands dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/