[2026:RJ-JP:20323-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 474/2026 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16018/2025 Gajendra Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Hans Raj Yadav, Aged About 52 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 11-A, Path No. 6, Kana Ram Nagar, Teen Dukan, Dher Ka Balaji, Sikar Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Appellant Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shailesh Sharma For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA 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, [2026:RJ-JP:20323-DB] (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: पद कम संखया 1 व 2 के ललए :- ददनांक 01.01.2024 को नयूनतम 21 वरर एवं अधधकतम 40 वरर से कम। नोट :- 1. कालमरक (क-2) ववभाग की अधधसूचना ददनांक 23.09.2022 के अनुसार जो वयककक ददनांक 31.12.2020 को आयु सीमा के भीतर था, उसे ददनांक 31.12.2024 तक आयु सीमा के भीतर ही समझा जायेगा। 2. उकत पद ( पद कम संखया 1 व 2) आयोग दवारा पूवर मे वरर 1992 एवं इससे पूवर मे ववजावपत ककये थे। ततपशचात ् उकत पदो हेतु कोई ववजापन जारी नहीं ककया गया। अतः जो अभयथर ददनांक 01.01.2024 को अधधकायु के होते है, उनहे संबंधधत सेवा ननयम मे ववदहत पावधान के अनुसार ऊपरी आयु सीमा मे 03 वरर की अनतररकत छू ट देय होगी। 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: अभयधथरयो का वगर एवं अनय ववलशषट शेणणयां अधधकतम आयु मे देय छू ट 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 [2026:RJ-JP:20323-DB] (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