- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant, who is also the petitioner, is aggrieved of the fact that she has not been considered eligible for appointment to the post of Lecturer under the Rajasthan Technical Service Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1973) notwithstanding that she holds academic qualifications necessary for such consideration solely on account of amendment in the Rules of 1973 after the date on which vacancies for the year 1996-97 were to be determined.
(2.) The facts, which are not in dispute, are that the petitioner was born on 1.10.78 and the amendment was made in the Rules of 1963 on 21.11.96. The minimum age required for entry in the service under the Rules was 18 years before its amendment. The candidate must have attained the minimum age on the first day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of applications. As on the date notification was issued, amendment prescribing the minimum age as 20 years had come into being. Last date for receiving application was 15.3.1997 and the date on which the candidate was required to have completed It least 21 years was 1.1.1998. As on that data the petitioner did not become 20 years of age, hence she was not considered eligible and excluded from consideration.
(3.) It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant- petitioner that since the petitioner was 18 years of age as on 1.4.96, the date on which vacancies for the year 1996-97 were to be determined, and she was eligible as per rules existing on the date when vacancies were to be determined for being considered on the post of Lecturer, by subsequent amendment in the Rules she cannot be deprived of such consideration. Alternatively, it is urged by learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner that the amendment itself, having no rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by such amendment, is unreasonable and deserves to be struck down as violative of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution.;