[2025:RJ-JP:13712] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7446/2012 Rakesh Kumar Sharma S/o Narain Lal Sharma, Village Ani,post Labana,tehsil Amer,district Jaipur ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan University Of Health Science, through Its Registrar, sector-18,kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar,to 2. Registrar, rajasthan University Of Health Science, sector- 18,kumbha Marg, pratap Nagar,tonk Road, jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshit Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.B. Sharma Ganthola HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 26/03/2025 1. The instant petition is filed with the following prayer:- i. that the impugned advertisement dated 09.11.2011 (Annexure-8) issued by the respondents for the post of LDC for regular recruitment may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary being issued in the absence of Requisite Service Rules and therefore same may kindly be quashed and set aside. ii. in the event that this Hon’ble Court comes to the conclusion that the selection process initiated by the respondents vide advertisement dated 09.11.2011 is legal and valid than in the alternative (A) it is humbly prayed that:- i. the impugned action of the respondents dated 05.05.2012 (Annexure-13) rejecting form of humble petitioner for the post of LDC on the basis of age barred may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary and therefore same may kindly quashed and set aside; [2025:RJ-JP:13712] (2 of 4) [CW-7446/2012] ii. the impugned clause 1 of the advertisement dated 09.11.2011 so far as it prescribes the qualification contrary to the rules of 1974 and the Draft Rules 2010 may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary and therefore same kindly be quashed and set aside. iii. That the impugned action of the respondents in not granting age relaxation, preference and bonus marks to humble petitioner in the selection process may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary and therefore, same may kindly be quashed and set aside; B. that the respondents may kindly be directed by issuing writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature thereof:- i. to make the selection on the post of LDC as per the Rules of 1974 or to initiate the selection process for direct recruitment for regular appointment on the post of LDC after accent to the Draft Rules, 2010; ii. to prescribe the education qualification on the post of LDC as per the Rules of 1974 or the Draft Rules, 2010; iii. To provide preference in the form of bonus marks to humble petitioner in regular selection to be made on the post of LDC; iv. to grant age relaxation to humble petitioner in regular selection for the post of LDC; v. and to regularize the service of the humble petitioner on the post of LDC; III. By an appropriate, writ, direction or order or nature thereof, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the petitioner for appointment on the post of LDC with all consequential benefits. IV. any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly also be passed in favour of the petitioner. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order dated 05.05.2012 (Annexure-13) may be declared illegal and arbitrary, as on the basis of the same the [2025:RJ-JP:13712] (3 of 4) [CW-7446/2012] petitioner is declared over age. It is further submitted that in view of the order dated 10.05.2012, the petitioner was permitted to appear in the selection for the post of LDC on provisional basis. However, his result was directed to be kept in a sealed cover envelope. Subsequently, it is submitted that in the written examination, the petitioner had qualified, howsoever, he was not permitted to appear in the typing test. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that petitioner has worked for a long period and in the light of dictum passed by the Apex Court in Jaggo vs. Union of India reported in 2024 INSC 1034 and University of Delhi Vs. Delhi University Contract Employees Union reported in 2021(16) SCC 71, the petitioner should be considered. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the order dated 10.05.2012 was subsequently modified by this Court and permission was granted to move forward with the selection process. Consequentially, 15 candidates were selected and 9 candidates were kept in the reserved list. However, the petitioner had failed to attain the requisite merit, as per the cut-off under his category. Nevertheless, the fact of the petitioner being over-aged cannot be overlooked. Lastly, it is submitted that as on date, no vacant seats are available. 4. Having heard the rival arguments put-forth by the counsel representing both the parties, considering the material available on record and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it can be deduced that the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are on distinguishable facts. Therefore, the same shall have no applicability upon the matter in hand. [2025:RJ-JP:13712] (4 of 4) [CW-7446/2012] 5. In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed. (SAMEER JAIN),J CHANDAN /281