SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has prayed in this petition to quash the condition of relaxation of age given in advertisement Ex.-1 and declare the proviso to Rule 10 (vii) of the Rajasthan Panchyat Samiti & Zila Parishad Rules, 1959. It is also prayed that the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment as Teacher Gr.-III.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. 2 Zila Parishad Chittorgarh issued advertisement Ex.-1 for Teachers (Gr.-III ). The general vacancies excluding the reservation were kept at 50. 83 per cent out of 425 posts. The age relaxation was given to those employees who were working in the Panchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad. The petitioner also applied for the post of Teacher (Gr.-III) in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement. A merit-list was prepared and in the merit-list persons securing 74 per cent marks were shown as selected but the petitioner was not though, according to him, he secured 82 per cent marks after adding the marks for residence in rural area, studying in rural area, etc. It is the case of the petitioner that he is working as Teacher (Gr.-III) in aided School and having experience of 8 years and 10 months. The only contention raised in this petition and also argued by learned counsel Shri Sankhla for the petitioner is that there is no nexus in giving the age relaxation to the employees working in the Zila Parishad and Panchayat Samiti even though he may be working in the ministerial class or IV class and denying the age relaxation to the Teaching staff whether working in the government-aided schools. This submission was made on the basis that it was done as per the proviso of Rule 10 (vii) of the Rajasthan Panchayat Samiti & Zila Parishad Service Rules, 1959 without reproducing the same in this writ petition. The oral submission of Shri Sankhla was that the said proviso to Rule 10 (vii) of the 1959 Rules is in clear violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and, therefore, it should be declared ultra vires and, accordingly, it may be struck down. There is no need for me to decide the question regarding the legality and validity of the proviso to Rule 10 (vii) of the 1959 Rules because the 1959 Rules themselves have been repealed with effect from 31. 12. 1996 by the introduction of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act 1994 and the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996. It will be an only academic discussion. It may be stated that this fact was earlier brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for respondents on 27. 9. 98 and this Court (Hon'ble Dr. B. S. Chauhan, J.) has observed in the order dated 27. 9. 98 that when the Rules of 1959 themselves have been repealed, therefore, deciding the writ petition will be only for an academic purpose and no fruitful purpose will be served. However, the matter was adjourned as Shri D. K. Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner wanted some time for amending the writ petition. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time by my learned brothers Dr. Chauhan and Mr. Yadav, JJ. But, so far the petition is not amended. Under the circumstances, when the Rules of 1959 themselves have no more remained in force then there is no question of considering the legality and validity of proviso to Rule 10 (vii) of the 1959 Rules and decide as to whether the same was ultra vires or not.
(3.) ON merits, the case of the petitioner is that the age relaxation has been given to the employees working in the Panchayat Samiti/zila Parishad and the same benefit is not extended to the persons like the petitioner who are working in the government-aided schools, therefore, the same is in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out that how this differentiation is arbitrary. If there is a reasonable differentiation then certainly this Court would not interfere in its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned counsel Shri Purohit has relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 21. 1. 2000 delivered in Hawa Singh vs. State & Others (1) and submitted that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. In Hawa Singh's case (supra) the petitioner filed writ petition praying that the respondents be directed to extend earlier age relaxation to the O. B. C. candidates which was given to other reserved category of SC/st and Women etc. for admission in the certificate course of the Physical College 1999-2000. In Hawa Singh's case, for the general-category the maximum age limit was 25 years; but, for other reserved category candidates like SC/st and Women etc. it was relaxed upto 30 years but no such relaxation was made for the O. B. C. and the petitioner Hawa Singh coming from the O. B. C. category challenged the same on the ground that if other reserved category people have been extended such benefit of relaxation in age then such relaxation should also be made in favour of the O. B. C. While dismissing that petition, this Court held that if the respondents in their wisdom decided to extend the benefit of relaxation of age limit to some of the reserved categories like SC/st and Women etc. and not to the O. B. C. category then this Court cannot interfere with such discretion unless and until it is pointed out that such relaxation was not done in favour of the one category with ulterior motive or with mala fide intention. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this petition is also squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment in Hawa Singh's case. ;