Court Can't Infer Cumulative Age Relaxation When Rules & Recruitment Advertisement Are Silent: Rajasthan High Court

The Rajasthan High Court has held that each age relaxation provided under Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathy And Naturopathy Service Rules, 1973 were to be applied independently since no cumulative age relaxation was envisaged across different categories.

In doing so the court said that the Rules demonstrated a deliberate legislative design in carving out age relaxations category-wise. It said that once the authority, acting under constitutional mandate had consciously provided differentiated relaxations with clear limits, the court cannot exercise interpretative power and permit cumulative benefits in the absence of an express enabling provision. 

While hearing a matter wherein candidates seeking selection as Unani Medical Officers had sought inference of cumulative appointments in the Rules, a division bench of Justice (Dr.) Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sandeep Taneja said:

"The very object of distinct relaxations is to balance the considerations of equity and administrative efficiency for each class of candidates. For example, unlimited relaxation for widows and divorcees is premised on their peculiar social disadvantage; a capped relaxation for contract employees seeks to recognize service already rendered; a limited relaxation for postgraduates reflects the State's policy to incentivize higher education without disturbing the overall age balance in service. To allow aggregation across these categories would dilute the carefully crafted scheme, leading to anomalous results unintended by the rule-making authority. Moreover, the principle that separate relaxations cannot be clubbed unless specifically provided has been consistently recognized. In service jurisprudence, cumulative relaxation is treated as an exception and not the norm. The absence of any enabling clause in Rule 9 of the Rules of 1973 must, therefore, be construed as a conscious exclusion by the framers of the Rules".

The bench thereafter summarized the legal position on cumulative age relaxation:

• If the Rule itself provides for cumulative relaxation, the same must be respected. 
• If the Rule prescribes non-cumulative relaxation, then the Rule will prevail. 
• If the Rule is silent, the advertisement will govern the recruitment (as in the present case).
• If both the Rule and the advertisement are silent, the default position is that relaxation will be noncumulative. 
• If the State intends to extend cumulative benefit, it must do so by express stipulation in the Rule or the advertisement.
• Thus, if the Rule is speaking, the Rule will prevail; if silent, the advertisement will prevail. (“Rules of the game cannot be changed midway after the process of appointment to public post has already begun.”)

The Court was hearing State's appeal against the order of the single judge wherein State Government was directed to grant the benefit of cumulative age relaxation to the respondent candidates under Rule 9 of the Rules, in the recruitments of Unani Medical Officers.

Respondents' candidature was rejected for being over-aged. Writ petitions were filed on the ground that Rule 9 of the Rules provided for age relaxations under different categories which had to be granted cumulatively. Hence, they were entitled to the 5 years relaxation under OBC category along with further 3 years under candidates affected by non-holding of recruitment.

These writ petitions were accepted, directing the State to provide benefit of cumulative age relaxation to the petitioners. Against this order, the special appeals were filed.

After hearing the contentions, and perusing Rule 9, the Court held that there was no indication of the age relaxations being cumulative in the Rule, and the Rule was silent on the cumulative or non-cumulative nature of age concessions. Without such explicit mention, Court could not add words or supply omissions to expand the scope of Rules.

“…principle of casus omissus is well-settled — where the Rule-maker has not provided for a situation, the Court cannot, under the guise of interpretation, legislate…Once the authority, acting under such constitutional mandate, has consciously provided differentiated relaxations with clear limits, the Court cannot, in exercise of interpretative power, either enlarge the scope or permit cumulative benefits in the absence of an express enabling provision.”

Holding that in service jurisprudence, cumulative relaxation was exception and not the norm, reference was also made to a case of Dhuleshwar Ghogra v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. It was observed in this case that such an interpretation would nullify the prescribed age limit, leading to indefinite eligibility which was never intended by the legislature.

“It is a settled principle that conditions of recruitment specifically incorporated in the advertisement cannot be diluted or re-written by judicial interpretation, unless they are shown to be in direct conflict with the parent Rules or the Constitution.”

In this background, it was highlighted that since the stipulation of non-cumulative relaxation was consistent with the scheme of Rule 9, there was no scope to infer a right of cumulative benefit.

Accordingly while making the above-mentioned observations, the special appeals were allowed, setting aside the single judge's order.

Title: State of Rajasthan & Ors. v Dr. Ali Taqi & Ors., and other connected petitions

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 312

Click Here To Read/Download Order