Full Judgment
Indersen Israni, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to give direction to the respondents that the petitioner may not be treated as over age and he may be appointed on the post of Lecturer (Urology) on temporary basis.
2. Briefly, it is submitted by Mr. R.D. Rastogi, learned Counsel, that the petitioner's date of birth is January 1, 1956 (Anx. 1). He passed his MBBS examination, in the year, 1979, from the University of Rajasthan and secured First Division. Thereafter, he passed his M.S. in General Surgery, in year, 1984, from the same University. He passed his M.Ch. (Urology) Degree Course in the year, 1987 (Anx. 4). The Deputy Secretary, Medical and Health Services issued advertisement No. 1/90 on August 13, 1990, which was published in 'Rajasthan Patrika' on August 22, 1990, in which three posts of Lecturer in Urology have been advertised on ad-hoc/urgent temporary basis. The maximum age required was 35 years to be counted as on January 1, 1991 (Anx. 5), as per Rule 11 of the Rajasthan Medical (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962. The petitioner appeared in interview under the Court orders and was placed at No. 1. However, he was not given appointment as he was said to be over age by one day on January 1991. It is further submitted that similar question arose for consideration in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1059/88 (Dr. Rajeev Mathur v. State of Rajasthan), decided on February 14, 1991, alongwtth two other similar petitions, by which, Rule 11(1) of the Rules, 1962 was struck down and it was held that the age should be computed as on the last date for receipt of applications and not on the first of January next following year in which the applications are invited. It is also submitted that since the rule has been struck down, the age of the petitioner has to be computed as on the last date for receipt of application i.e., August 31, 1990.
3. Mr. M.I. Khan, learned Additional Advocate General, also admits this position.
4. I have heard both the parties and gone through the documents on record. It is submitted by Mr. M.I. Khan, learned Additional Advocate-General, that this judgment was challenged before the Apex Court, but has been upheld. I do not deem it necessary to go into further details of the matter.
5. For the reasons mentioned in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1059/88 (supra), this writ petition is allowed and it is directed that the age of the petitioner shall be computed as on the last date for receipt of applications, i.e., August 31, 1990. On this computation, if the petitioner is found to be within age, he shall be considered for appointment or the post of Lecturer (Urology), on ad-hoc/urgent temporary basis, as advertised in the relevant advertisement. It is further clarified that the seniority of the petitioner shall be protected, since the Rule has been struck down and he was at No. 1 in merit list.
6. The writ petition is allowed, as above.