In a significant order addressing age relaxation for temporary government employees, the Rajasthan High Court has directed the respondents to allow a petitioner to participate in the interview process for the post of Assistant Professor (Radiotherapy), while clarifying that final appointment shall be subject to the Court's leave. The judgment underscores the principle that temporary employees who were within the prescribed age limit at the time of their initial appointment are entitled to age relaxation benefits, even if they subsequently exceed the age limit at the time of application before the Commission.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Dr. Atul Verma, is an Assistant Professor working on an urgent temporary basis in the Radiation Oncology Department of R.N.T. Medical College, Udaipur. He applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Radiotherapy) pursuant to an advertisement dated 11.12.2024 issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC). His candidature was rejected solely on the ground of being overage, despite his contention that he was entitled to age relaxation under Clause 5 of the advertisement.
Key Facts
- The petitioner has been serving as an Assistant Professor on an urgent temporary basis since 2020
- The advertisement (Annexure-3) dated 11.12.2024 prescribed an upper age limit of 42 years, with a relaxation of 5 years for SC category candidates
- Clause 5 of the advertisement provided that persons appointed temporarily to a post in the service shall be deemed to be within the age limit if they were within the age limit at the time of their initial appointment, even if they subsequently exceed the age limit
- The petitioner was 40 years, 10 months, and 19 days old at the time of his initial appointment on an urgent temporary basis
- As per the cut-off date (01.01.2026) mentioned in the advertisement, the petitioner was 46 years, 8 months, and 19 days old, exceeding the upper age limit by 8 months and 19 days after accounting for SC category relaxation
- The petitioner belongs to the SC category and is thus entitled to a 5-year relaxation in the upper age limit
Procedural History
- 11.12.2024: Advertisement issued by RPSC for the post of Assistant Professor (Radiotherapy)
- 2020: Petitioner appointed on urgent temporary basis
- Date not specified: Petitioner applied for the post under the advertisement
- Date not specified: Petitioner’s candidature rejected on grounds of being overage
- Date not specified: Petitioner filed the present writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14143/2026) before the Rajasthan High Court
- 13.07.2026: High Court issued notice to respondents and directed interim relief
Relief Sought
The petitioner seeks:
- A direction to the respondents to allow him to participate in the interview for the post of Assistant Professor (Radiotherapy)
- Recognition of his entitlement to age relaxation under Clause 5 of the advertisement dated 11.12.2024
- A stay on the rejection of his candidature on grounds of being overage
The Legal Issue
The central question before the Court was whether a temporary employee, who was within the prescribed age limit at the time of initial appointment but subsequently exceeded the age limit at the time of application before the Commission, is entitled to the benefit of age relaxation under Clause 5 of the advertisement issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
- The petitioner contended that Clause 5 of the advertisement explicitly provides for age relaxation for temporary employees who were within the age limit at the time of their initial appointment
- He argued that the respondents failed to consider the fact that he was 40 years, 10 months, and 19 days old at the time of his initial appointment, which was well within the prescribed age limit of 42 years (with an additional 5-year relaxation for SC category)
- The petitioner submitted that his current age (46 years, 8 months, and 19 days) exceeds the upper age limit by only 8 months and 19 days, which should be condoned under the relaxation clause
- Reliance was placed on the principle that temporary service should be treated at par with regular service for the purpose of age relaxation, as the advertisement itself deems such employees eligible for two chances if they were within the age limit at the time of initial appointment
For the Respondents
- The respondents argued that the petitioner’s age at the time of application (46 years, 8 months, and 19 days) exceeded the prescribed upper age limit, even after accounting for the 5-year relaxation for SC category
- They contended that Clause 5 of the advertisement does not automatically extend the benefit of age relaxation to all temporary employees, and the petitioner’s case did not fall within its ambit
- The respondents submitted that the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature was in accordance with the rules and the advertisement’s terms
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the petitioner’s case hinged on the interpretation of Clause 5 of the advertisement, which provides for age relaxation for temporary employees who were within the age limit at the time of their initial appointment. The Court noted that the petitioner was 40 years, 10 months, and 19 days old at the time of his initial appointment, which was within the prescribed age limit of 42 years (with an additional 5-year relaxation for SC category).
The Court emphasized that the respondents had failed to consider the petitioner’s entitlement to age relaxation under Clause 5, which explicitly states that temporary employees shall be deemed to be within the age limit if they were eligible at the time of their initial appointment. The Court held that the petitioner’s case required consideration, as the rejection of his candidature solely on the ground of being overage, without accounting for the relaxation clause, was arbitrary.
"The respondents have failed to take into consideration the fact that the petitioner was within the prescribed age limit at the time of his appointment on an urgent temporary basis and, therefore, he ought to have been extended the benefit of age relaxation as laid down under Clause 5 of the advertisement."
The Court further noted that the petitioner’s current age exceeds the upper age limit by only 8 months and 19 days, which is a marginal excess and should not disentitle him from participating in the interview process. The Court also connected the present writ petition with another pending matter (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13893/2026), suggesting a pattern of similar disputes.
The Verdict
The Court issued the following directions:
- The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to participate in the interview for the post of Assistant Professor (Radiotherapy), as and when scheduled
- The final appointment of the petitioner shall be subject to the leave of this Court, meaning that the respondents cannot accord appointment without the Court’s permission
- Notice was issued to the respondents, and the stay petition was also ordered to be listed
- The matter was connected with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13893/2026 for further proceedings
What This Means For Similar Cases
Temporary Employees Entitled to Age Relaxation
The judgment reinforces the principle that temporary employees who were within the age limit at the time of their initial appointment are entitled to age relaxation benefits under service rules. Practitioners should:
- Scrutinize advertisements and service rules for clauses similar to Clause 5 of the RPSC advertisement, which provide for age relaxation for temporary employees
- Argue that such clauses must be interpreted liberally to avoid arbitrariness, especially when the employee’s age exceeds the limit only marginally
Marginal Excess of Age Limit Not Fatal
- Courts are likely to condone marginal excess of the age limit (e.g., 8 months and 19 days in this case) if the employee was within the limit at the time of initial appointment
- Practitioners should highlight the quantum of excess age and argue that it should not disentitle the candidate from participating in the selection process
Procedural Safeguards for Temporary Employees
- The judgment underscores the need for procedural safeguards for temporary employees, including the right to participate in selection processes without automatic disqualification
- Employers and service commissions must consider the entire tenure of temporary service while applying age relaxation clauses, rather than relying solely on the age at the time of application
