LAWS(RAJ)-2016-11-53

SUMITRA MEGHWAL D/O SHRI HAMIR LAL MEGHWAL WIFE OF SHRI CHANDRA SHEKHAR MEGHWAL, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, RESIDENT OF MEGHWALON KA MOHALLA, SALUMBAR, DISTRICT UDAIPUR (RAJ.). Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH ITS JOINT SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL (A

Decided On November 08, 2016
Sumitra Meghwal D/O Shri Hamir Lal Meghwal Wife Of Shri Chandra Shekhar Meghwal, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Meghwalon Ka Mohalla, Salumbar, District Udaipur (Raj.). Appellant
V/S
The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Joint Secretary, Department Of Personnel (A Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These petitions for writ are before us to examine constitutional validity of Rule 2(j) and Rule 15 of the Rajasthan Vidhyalay Sahayak Subordinate Service Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 2015'). The Rules of 2015 are framed by the Governor of Rajasthan exercising powers conferred by proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India to regulate recruitment to the posts in, and the conditions of service of persons appointed to the Rajasthan Vidhyalay Sahayak Subordinate Service. The cadre of Vidhyalay Sahayak Subordinate Service consists of one post only i.e. Vidhyalay Sahayak.

(2.) As per Rule 6 of the Rules of 2015, recruitment to the post of Vidhyalay Sahayak is required to be made by way of direct recruitment in accordance with the procedure laid down in Part-IV of the Rules.

(3.) As per Rule 15 of the Rules of 2015, a candidate for direct recruitment to the post enumerated in the Schedule-I i.e. of Vidhyalay Sahayak must have attained the age of 18 years and must not have attained the age of 35 years on the first day of Jan. next following the last date fixed for receipt of applications. As per proviso (x), the persons serving under the State Government School/State Government Educational Projects viz. Lok Jumbish Pariyojana/Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/District Primary Education Programme/Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala/Shiksha Karmi Board and Madarsa listed under the Madarsa Board, shall be deemed to be within the age limit, had they been within the age limit when they were initially engaged even though may have crossed the age limit at the time of direct recruitment.