Judgment:
Sharma, J.
1. The prayer of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is as under-
(i) This writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction the action of the respondents in not providing age relaxation of 10 years to the women candidates of SC, ST & OBC Category may kindly be declared to be illegal arid the same may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to provide relaxation of 10 years in maximum age i.e. 33 + 10 to the petitioner i.e., 33+10 to the petitioner i.e., general category women candidates and the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner accordingly by treating her within the age and if found suitable otherwise, the respondents may be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Lecturer (History) from the dates other candidates are appointed in pursuance of the advertisement No.1/2001-2002.
(ii) by further appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may be directed to provide relaxation of five years to the petitioner in upper age limit i.e. for the period for which the vacancies have not been notified and the selections have not been held after 1996 and accordingly the petitioner may be treated within age and the respondents may be directed to consider her candidature for the post of Lecturer (History) and if found suitable otherwise, the respondents may be directed to give appointment to the petitioner also from the dated other candidates are given appointment in pursuance of the advertisement No. 1/2001/2002.
2. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I dismissed the writ petition summarily on July 3, 2002, with a note that reasons shall follow. Now I assign the reasons for not entertaining the writ petition.
3. The petitioner is aggrieved by not increasing age relaxation for general women candidates. Contention of the petitioner is that because of discriminatory treatment given by the respondent, she has been deprived of her eligibility for consideration for the post of Lecturer in History. The petitioner averred in the writ petition that in 1998 she acquired the qualification of B.Ed. which is the minimum qualification for Lecturer. The last selections were held in 1996 and after that in 2001 the vacancies have been notified and this is the first opportunity for the petitioner if the age relaxation of 10 year is made available to her. The respondents have not provided age relaxation of 10 years for general women candidates as has been provided to women candidates of SC, ST and OBC. This whole action on the part of the respondents is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also pleaded that had the vacancies been notified after 1996 the petitioner would have been eligible to appear. Therefore the grievance of the petitioner is that action of respondents in not determining the vacancies and not conducting the examination yearwise and not giving the relaxation in the age limit to the petitioner who has become overage, be declared arbitrary and discriminatory.
4. In a similar situation the Division Bench of this Court in Smt. Anand Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan (1), held that where the last advertisement was issued in 1983 and after a lapse of six years another advertisement was issued in 1989 the candidature of the petitioner who completed the age of 40 years in 1986 cannot be rejected, if yearwise vacancies were not determined and the advertisement was issued to fill up the vacancies of six years.
5. The said decision of the Division Bench was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 52/1993. The Apex Court decided the appeal vide order dated Feb. 8, 1995. While setting aside the Division Bench order the Apex Court observed as under -
'We are of the view that the High Court fell into patent error bordering on perversity in issuing the mandamus on the reasoning quoted above. It is settled proposition of law that the eligibility of a candidate has to be determined on the basis of the terms and conditions of the advertisement in response to which the candidate applies. There is nothing on the record to show that the State Government was in any manner negligent or at fault in not making the direct recruitment during the period 1983-89. Be that as it may, the High Court was not justified in taking the clock back to the period when unfilled vacancies were existing and holding that since the respondent was eligible on the date when vacancies fell vacant, she continues to be so till the time the vacancies are filled. Due to inaction on the part of the State Government in not filling the posts yearwise the respondent cannot get a right to participate in the selection despite being over age.'
6. In yet another case of J & K Public Service Commission v. Dr. Narender Mohah (2), their Lordships of the Supreme Court indicated thus -
'It is difficult to accept the contention of Shri Rao to adopt the chain system of recruitment of the candidates found eligible for the respective years. It would be fraught with grave consequences. It is settled law that the Government need not immediately notify vacancies as soon as they arose. It is open, as early as possible to inform the vacancies existing or anticipated to the P.S.C. for recruitment and that every eligible person is entitled to apply for and to be considered of his claim for recruitment provided he satisfied the prescribed requisite qualifications. Pegging the recruitment in chain system would deprive all the eligible candidates as on date of inviting applications for recruitment offending Article 14 and 16.'
7. As a result of the above discussion I find that even if inaction of the State Government is found in not filling the post yearwise, the petitioner is not entitled to participate in the selection as she does not fulfil the requirement of the advertisement of selection.
8. I find no merit in the writ petition it stands dismissed summarily.