Safiya Malik

The High Court of Rajasthan Division Bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sandeep Taneja ruled that age concessions under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules, 1973 must be applied separately for each category and cannot be combined. Emphasising the statutory framework, the Court observed that the scheme of differentiated relaxations reflects a conscious legislative intent, and judicial interpretation cannot be used to enlarge their scope. It concluded that, absent an explicit provision authorising aggregation, cumulative age relaxation has no place within the recruitment process governed by the 1973 Rules.

The matter before the High Court of Rajasthan arose from a dispute concerning recruitment to the post of Unani Medical Officer under the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules, 1973. The petitioners, including Dr. Ahatsham Ali, had applied pursuant to an advertisement issued in 2023. Their applications were not accepted on the ground that they exceeded the prescribed age limit. The central controversy was whether age relaxation benefits provided under Rule 9 of the 1973 Rules could be combined across categories, thereby entitling candidates to a higher maximum age limit through cumulative application of relaxations.

Also Read: Supreme Court Approves New Pharmacy Council Schedule, Alters Approval and Admission Deadlines for Pharma Courses

The petitioners contended that they were eligible for appointment if cumulative age relaxations under multiple categories were applied. They argued that the statutory scheme did not prohibit aggregation and that the benefit of multiple relaxations should flow in favour of candidates placed in more than one eligible category. It was further urged that exclusion of such candidates was contrary to the constitutional mandate of equality and fairness in public employment.

The State authorities opposed the petitioners’ claim. They submitted that Rule 9 of the 1973 Rules specifically provided relaxations in age for distinct categories such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and women candidates, but nowhere authorised the clubbing of those relaxations. The State maintained that the advertisement had expressly stipulated that age relaxations would not be cumulative, and this stipulation was consistent with the statutory framework.

The Single Judge before whom the matter was initially considered had accepted the plea of the petitioners and allowed their claim. The State preferred an intra-court appeal, which was heard by the Division Bench comprising Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sandeep Taneja. The appellate proceedings focused on whether the Single Judge’s interpretation of Rule 9 was legally sustainable and whether the petitioners were entitled to the benefit of cumulative relaxations.

Evidence before the Court included the recruitment advertisement, relevant extracts of the 1973 Rules, and submissions by counsel for both parties regarding the interpretation of Rule 9. The statutory provision was central, as it set out the extent of relaxation permissible in age for different categories, but did not contain any wording permitting aggregation. Thus, the dispute turned on statutory interpretation and the scope of judicial authority to read into the provision a benefit not expressly conferred.

The High Court recorded that “Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy Service Rules, 1973 makes specific provision for age relaxation for certain categories of candidates.” It further observed that “the said Rule does not contemplate the cumulative application of relaxations across different categories.”

The Court stated that “the legislative intent behind Rule 9 is evident from the manner in which the relaxations have been carved out for separate categories.” According to the Bench, “when the Rule-making authority has consciously provided distinct relaxations with clear limits, it is not open to the Court to enlarge the scope of such provision.”

In dealing with the petitioners’ argument that multiple relaxations should be read together, the Court recorded that “there is no express enabling clause in the Rules or in the recruitment advertisement which permits aggregation of age concessions.” It added that “to allow cumulative benefit in the absence of such an express clause would amount to judicial legislation, which is impermissible.”

The Bench noted the constitutional argument advanced by the petitioners but observed that “the constitutional mandate of equality is satisfied when statutory provisions are applied as they stand.” It clarified that “differentiated relaxations category-wise form part of a deliberate legislative design and cannot be judicially modified.”

Addressing the Single Judge’s view, the Court stated that “the finding that cumulative age relaxation could be granted is contrary to the plain language of Rule 9 and cannot be sustained.” It further recorded that “the Single Judge, by permitting aggregation of benefits, effectively re-wrote the statutory scheme.”

Also Read: Rajasthan High Court | No Monopoly for Existing Fair Price Shop Owners | Opening of New Shops a Policy Decision Under National Food Security Act, 2013

The Court also recorded that “once the authority acting under constitutional mandate has consciously limited the benefit, the Court cannot extend it through interpretative exercise.” It concluded by stating that “the scope of judicial review in matters of statutory relaxation is confined to ensuring conformity with the express provision, not to expanding its ambit.”

It recorded: “Thus, in view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that the Rules of 1973 do not envisage cumulative age relaxation across different categories. Each relaxation under Rule 9 of the said Rules is to be applied independently within its own sphere. The express stipulation in the advertisement that relaxations shall be non-cumulative is consistent with the statutory framework and cannot be termed arbitrary or de hors the Rules. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was not justified in directing the appellants to extend cumulative relaxation to the respondents.”

“Consequently, the present special appeals are allowed, and accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 21.05.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside.”

“All pending applications stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Piyush Bhandari for Mr. Praveen Khandelwal, AAG

For the Respondents: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Ojha; Mr. Mahendra Thanvi; Mr. Suniel Purohit

Case Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Mohammad Sajid; State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Dr. Ali Taqi & Ors.; State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Dr. Mohd. Yunus; State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Dr. Ahatsham Ali & Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JD:38791-DB

Case Number: D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ Nos. 1128/2024 (lead), 1123/2024, 1109/2024, 1105/2024

Bench: Justice Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati; Justice Sandeep Taneja