SAW/474/2026 of GAJENDRA KUMAR YADAV S/O SHRI HANS RAJ YADAV Vs RAJASTHAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION on 13 May 2026

Judgment

13/05/2026

1. Being aggrieved by the order of Single Judge dated 01.05.2026, dismissing the writ petition of appellant, seeking participation in selection process, appellant has preferred instant appeal.

2. Appellant is a candidate, who applied for appointment on the post of Physical Training Instructor in OBC category, pursuant to advertisement no. 06/2023-2024 dated 01.09.2023, issued by Rajasthan Public Service commission.

3. The only grievance of appellant is that despite issuance of an admit card to appellant and qualifying the written examination, he has been denied participation in selection process vide order dated 08.09.2025, for the reason that the appellant did not fall within the age limit prescribed under advertisement dated 01.09.2023.

4. Undisputedly, as per advertisement, only the candidates who were not below the age of 21 years and above 40 years,

(2 of 3) [SAW-474/2026] calculated as on 01.01.2024, were allowed to participate which was further relaxed. In this respect, relevant clause incorporated in advertisement, is as under:

पदकमसंखया

1

व 2

केललए

:-

ददनांक01.01.2024

कोनयूनतम21

वररएवंअधधकतम40

वररसेकम।

नोट:-

1. कालमरक(क-2)

ववभागकीअधधसूचनाददनांक23.09.2022

केअनुसारजोवयकककददनांक 31.12.2020

कोआयुसीमाकेभीतरथा,

उसेददनांक31.12.2024

तकआयुसीमाके

भीतर ही

समझाजायेगा।

2. उकतपद(

पदकमसंखया1 व2)

आयोगदवारापूवरमेवरर1992

एवंइससेपूवरमेववजावपत

ककयेथे।ततपशचात्उकतपदोहेतुकोईववजापनजारीनहींककयागया।अतःजोअभयथरददनांक 01.01.2024

कोअधधकायुकेहोतेहै,

उनहेसंबंधधतसेवाननयममेववदहतपावधानकेअनुसार

ऊपरीआयुसीमामे03

वररकीअनतररकतछूटदेयहोगी। Apart from the above relaxation of 3 years, reserved category candidates were given further relaxation of 5 years, relevant clause of which is being reproduced hereunder:

अभयधथरयोकावगरएवंअनयववलशषटशेणणयां

अधधकतमआयुमेदेयछूट

1. Male Candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes, More Backward Classes and Economically Weaker Sections of Rajasthan State Five Years

5. Hence, from perusal of above relevant clauses of the advertisement, it comes to fore that appellant being a candidate of OBC category was a given a total of 8 years of relaxation, meaning thereby, maximum age allowed as on 31.12.2020 for participating in selection process, came to be 48 years.

6. Undisputedly, at the time of filling the online application form on 09.10.2023, appellant was 48 years 3 months and 4 days of age as on 31.12.2020. The above mentioned clauses of the advertisement makes it clear that a candidate above the minimum age of 21 years and below the maximum age of 48 years, after relaxation, is eligible to participate in the examination. In the

(3 of 3) [SAW-474/2026] present case, indisputably, appellant is over age by 3 months and 4 days, hence, does not fulfill the age eligibility prescribed under advertisement dated 01.09.2023.

7. Counsel for appellant, based on doctrine of legitimate expectation has made a mercy prayer for grant of additional relaxation in the upper age limit to the appellant relaxing the period of his over-age i.e. 3 months 4 days. In this context, it is suffice to observe that relaxation in upper age limit has already been granted in the Advertisement itself which is a policy decision and exercise of jurisdiction by the High Court to consider grant of age relaxation to any individual would amount to creating a special category through judicial intervention which is not only impermissible, but would also disturb the uniform applicability of the relaxation criteria of age and would lead to a chaotic situation.

8. In view of aforesaid discussion, this Court holds that since appellant does not fulfill the age eligibility prescribed under advertisement no. 06/2023-2024 dated 01.09.2023, he cannot claim a right to be considered thereunder, for appointment on merits nor any case has been made out for grant of any further age relaxation, in addition to already granted in the Advertisement.

9. In that view of the matter, no interference is called for and instant Special Appeal is hereby dismissed.

10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J (SUDESH BANSAL),J RONAK JAIMAN/10