[2025:RJ-JP:50734-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 6/2025 Jagdish S/o Shri Arjun Ram, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of 34, Barkat Colony, Hanumangarh Town, Rajasthan. ----Appellant Versus 1. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer through its Secretary. 2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department of Agriculture, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 3. The Director, Agriculture Marketing, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Himmat Singh For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SANGEETA SHARMA Judgment 16/12/2025 1. The challenge is made by the appellant to the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 19.11.2024 whereby, the Hon’ble High Court has rejected the writ petition where the petitioner claimed that he should be given the same age relaxation as given to Gendi Lal Raigar. 2. The appellant-Jagdish applied for the post of Junior Marketing Officer with the Agriculture Marketing Department and as per 100 point roster, the appellant was required to be within age. As per 100 point roster and horizontal reservation point 1, 7, 13, 19 and 26 were reserved for Scheduled Caste. The age limit [2025:RJ-JP:50734-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-6/2025] prescribed is 18 to 33 years and the upper age could be extended upto 40 years for the departmental employees. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that once the other candidate namely Gendi Lal Raigar had been granted relaxation, he should also have been granted the same benefit. 4. This Court in its earlier order dated 28.08.2014 passed following directions:- “For the grievance like the present one, instead of directly entertaining the writ petition, petitioner is set at liberty to approach the Secretary, RPSC, who shall consider as to why petitioner should not be appointed and decide the said representation by speaking order addressing the grievance of petitioner within two months from the date of making representation by the petitioner.” 5. The representation was thereafter considered and the same was rejected as the petitioner was neither selected in the main list nor in the reserve list as his name was below cut-off marks, he therefore, could not claim parity with that too Gendi Lal Raigar. 6. It appears that the petitioner-appellant is under misconception of law. While a person may be entitled to age relaxation on account of his community reservation, however, so far as selection is concerned, he must reach to the bench mark applicable to him but neither he has been selected in the main list nor he has been placed in the reserve list while Gendi Lal Raigar was found to be in the main list. The petitioner-appellant having [2025:RJ-JP:50734-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-6/2025] not been placed in the selection list, the question of age relaxation would not arise at all, how he can claim parity with Gendi Lal. 7. The writ petition and the appeal are found to be misconceived. We do not find need to interfere in the order passed by learned Single Judge dated 19.11.2024. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 8. All pending application(s) stand disposed of. (SANGEETA SHARMA),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ Simple Kumawat /39