[2025:RJ-JP:21266-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 243/2023 Rajendar Singh S/o Sh. Banshi Singh, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Ward No. 8 Tiba Uper Rajaputon Ka Mohalla, Village Bhudoli, Tehsil Neema Ka Thana, District Sikar (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Deptt. Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Director, Directorate Of Medical And Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 3. The Addl. Director (Admn), Directorate Of Medical And Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 20/05/2025 None present on behalf of the appellant, even in the second round. The advertisement in question relates to the year 2013 for appointment on the post of Pharmacist and the appellant- petitioner prayed for relaxation in the age. The learned Single Judge in paras No.4 & 5 considered the issue, which reads as under:- “4. Upon perusal of record and upon consideration of arguments, it is observed that date of birth of the petitioner is 02.02.1969, which would make him 44 [2025:RJ-JP:21266-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-243/2023] years 10 months and 30 days as on 01.01.2014, i.e. the cut-off date. Even if the petitioner is allowed the relaxation of one year as mentioned in the advertisement, relaxation of five years prescribed for OBC candidates and relaxation of two years nine months and 15 days as per DOP Circular dated 06.02.2013, the petitioner being aged 44 years 10 months and 30 days, would still be overage by one year one month and 15 days as the enhanced relaxation period could only be extended till age of 43 years 9 months and 15 days. 5. In the light of above and considering the fact that selection process was initiated in the year 2014 in pursuance of advertisement of the year 2013, that no interim protection was granted to the petitioner and that the selection process was also concluded long back and further considering the fact that the petitioner was overage, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition.” We have perused the order dated 13.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, as the granting of age relaxation is within the sole domain of the State according to Rules and also considering the fact that the advertisement in question relates to the year 2013 and after passing of more than 10 years, in our considered view, no case is made out for interference by this Court. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J Upendra Pratap Singh /69