Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - (1.) ALL the aforementioned three writ petitions are being decided by this common order as in all of them similar and identical questions of law and facts are involved. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3369/2001
(2.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 17.8.2001 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, Rule 10 of the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1970") which prescribes minimum age as 24 years for selection to the post of School Lecturers, be declared ultra vires, unreasonable and unconstitutional and be struck down and the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to participate in the selection process for the post of Lecturer (School), in pursuance of advertisement Annex. 5 dated 8.6.2001, irrespective of her age. The case of the petitioner as put forward by her in this writ petition is as follows: The petitioner qualified the Secondary Class in First Division in the year 1993 and her date of birth is 15.10.1978, which is evident from Annex. 1 which is a Certificate of Secondary School Examination, 1993. According to the petitioner, she is having good academic record to her credit having passed the B.A. in First Division from Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University, Ajmer in the year 1998, which is evident from Annex. 2 Provisional Certificate of BA. The petitioner was awarded B.Ed. degree from the same University in the year 2000 and she qualified the same in First Division in Theory and Practical both, as is evident from Annex. 3, which is a Provisional Certificate of B.Ed. The petitioner prosecuted her Master Degree in Political Science in the year 2001 and secured second division, as is evident from Annex. 4, which is a Provisional Certificate of M.A. The further case of the petitioner is. that the respondent No. 3 Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short "Commission") advertised number of vacancies for School Lecturers vide advertisement No. 2/2001 -2002 dated 8.6.2001 (Annex. 5) and this advertisement also includes the posts of School Lecturer in Political Science. The advertisement Annex. 5 prescribed the minimum age for the posts of School Lecturers as 24 years as on 1.7.2002, as Rule 10 of the Rules of 1970 prescribes the requisite minimum age for the post of School Lecturer as 24 years. The further case of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 3 Commission advertised vacancies for the posts of College Lecturers through advertisement Annex. 6 dated 31.5.2001 and in that advertisement Annex. 6, the minimum age prescribed for the posts of College Lecturers is 21 years. Thus, according to the petitioner, it is clear that when the College Lecturer teaching post graduate classes can be appointed on completion of 21 years of age but School Lecturers are denied the same till they attain the age of 24 years and thus, there is no nexus in prescribing minimum age to be 24 years for School Lecturers. According to the petitioner, prescribing the minimum age of 24 years for the School Lecturers is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as it discriminates between School Lecturers and College Lecturers on prescribing minimum age limit as in the Case of College Lecturer, the minimum age prescribed is 21 years.
(3.) THUS , the case of the petitioner can be summarised in the following manner: (i) That since in some other Service Rules of the State, the minimum age limit prescribed is less than 24 years, therefore, prescribing the minimum age as 24 years for the purpose of appointment to the post of School Lecturer is discriminatory and, therefore, Rule 10 of the Rules of 1970 should be declared ultra vires the Constitution. (ii) That the factum of age after being found eligible in all other respects, has no relevance for denying such employment. (iii) That even the College Lecturer teaching post graduation classes can be appointed on completing 21 years of age, but School Lecturers are denied the same till they attain the age of 24 years and therefore, there is no basis for prescribing the minimum age limit to be 24 years for making appointment to the post of School Lecturers and what is relevant is only the acquiring of educational qualification and age should not be a relevant consideration at all. Thus, the petitioner has challenged Rule 10 of the Rules of 1970, which prescribes minimum age to be 24 years for selection to the post of School Lecturers, on the ground that it is irrational, illegal, unjustified and unconstitutional and therefore, it should be struck down and the petitioner should be allowed to participate in the selection process for the post of School Lecturer irrespective of her age as the case of the petitioner was refused to be considered on account of her having not attained the minimum prescribed age of 24 years as on 1.7.2002. Hence, this writ petition with the prayers as stated above. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents No. 1 and 2. The respondent No. 3 Commission has also filed a separate reply. The case of the respondents No. 1 and 2 is that the educational qualifications prescribed in the advertisement are that the candidate should atleast possess post graduation degree in the relevant subject in second division with degree/diploma of training or post graduate degree in the relevant subject alongwith degree/diploma of training and also five years teaching experience in the school of secondary or above level. It was further submitted by the respondents No. 1 and 2 that the contentions of the petitioner are wholly misconceived for the following reasons: (i) That the law is well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court as well as of Hon'ble Supreme Court that it is upto the Rule Making Authority to prescribe the qualifications including upper and lower age limit and this Court would not substitute such qualifications under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (ii) That it is equally settled that power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India to frame the Rules is legislative power and it is to be exercised by the Governor of the State and the High Court cannot issue a mandate to the State Government to legislate. (iii) That it is also well settled position of law that the Court would not usurp the functions assigned to the executive under the Constitution of India. (iv) That Rules of 1970 were framed by the Governor of Rajasthan under Article 309 of the Constitution of India and while framing the Rules of 1970, all relevant consideration germane to the fixing of the minimum age limit for the candidates seeking appointment to the post of School Lecturers were kept in mind. Thus, there is a well founded basis behind prescribing the qualifications under every set of Rules including the minimum age limit. (v) That simply because certain different minimum age limits have been prescribed for recruitment in other services or for the similar post under different set of rules, Rule 10 of the Rules of 1970 cannot be declared ultra vires the Constitution. (vi) That while prescribing the qualifications, a number of factors including age, educational qualification and experience have also to be taken into account and all these considerations have direct nexus with the object sought to be achieved arid that is why, the minimum age of 24 years has been prescribed in Rule 10 of the Rules of 1970 for appointment to the post of School Lecturers since teaching experience of five years is also sought in some matters and therefore, Rule 10 of the Rules of 1970 cannot be challenged on the ground that it prescribes minimum age of 24 years for appointment to the post of School Lecturers. Hence, it was prayed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.;