[2025:RJ-JP:22349-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 194/2023 Kaptan Singh Meena Son of Ramswaroop, aged about 40 years, Resident of Village and Post- Shaharakar, Tehsil-Todabhim, District Karauli (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Ajmer, Rajasthan. 3. Superintendent of Directorate Prison, Rajasthan Jaipur. 4. Director Genral, Directorate Jail Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents 5. Satpal Katariya S/o Brij Lal Katariya, aged about 37 years, R/o Ward No. 10, House No. 1/18, Rajasthan Housing Board Colony, Suratgarh, Pin Code 335804, District Sriganganar ----Proforma Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Arpan Kumar Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG with Mr. Vishu Datt Sharma & Ms. Sunita Meena HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 28/05/2025 1. This appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant against the order dated 16.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11153/2018, whereby the writ petition filed on behalf of the appellant was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has wrongly dismissed the appeal filed on behalf of the appellant as the respondents have issued the corrigendum [2025:RJ-JP:22349-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-194/2023] with regard to change in the age at the time of issuance of the original advertisement. 3. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. We have gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge wherein it has been observed as under:- “I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. This Court finds that initially the petitioners had filed the writ petitions before this Court and direction was given to raise their grievance before the Authorities for relaxation of age. This Court finds that the representations of the petitioners have been decided by an order dated 16.09.2017 and cogent reason has been assigned for rejecting the claim of the petitioners as Rule 49 of Rules of 1998, did not create any right in favour of these petitioners only on account of non holding of examination due to administrative exigency, in particular years. The Authorities have also come to conclusion that since relaxation has already been made and if overage relaxation were to be considered in respect of the candidates, who approached the Court, the rights of other candidates were also to be affected and other overage candidates were prevented from participating in the selection process.” 5. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. While granting the age relaxation in various service rules the Rajasthan Subordinate Jail Services was not included and the said notification was never challenged by the appellant. We have also considered the fact that advertisement in question relates to the year 2013. 6. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. 7. Pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J DIVYA /72