Dinesh Maheshwari - (1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks directions against the respondents for granting upper age relaxation in his candidature for recruitment to the post of Prabodhak. The petitioner, with his date of birth as 11.12.1963, is said to be possessed of the qualifications of Senior Secondary and B.S.T.C.; and was initially engaged as Para Teacher on 26.11.1999. The age requirement for the post of Prabodhak, as notified under the advertisement dated 31.05.2008, has been minimum at 23 years and maximum at 35 years as on 01.01.2009. However, a relaxation in the age limit has been provided in relation to the persons working in different educational projects like Rajiv Gandhi Schools, Shiksha Karmi Yojana etc., if they were within the age limit at the time of initial engagement. This relaxation is as per Proviso (v) to Rule 13 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 ('the Rules of 2008').
(2.) IT is submitted in this writ petition that there was no age limit provided for appointment as Para Teacher and hence, the condition that the candidate should be within the age limit at the time of initial engagement remains unjustified. It is also submitted that the post of Prabodhak has been created in order to regularise the Para Teachers; and the petitioner, who is working as such for about 9 years and has acquired sufficient experience, deserves to be granted age relaxation with exercise of powers under Rule 40 of the Rules of 2008. The submissions remain untenable and the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as claimed. Nothing of an exceptional case is made out wherefore the petitioner could be allowed special relaxation under Rule 40 of the Rules of 2008 over and above the relaxation as already allowed under proviso (v) to Rule 13 that reads as under: - 13. Age. - A candidate for direct recruitment to a post enumerated in the Schedule must have attained the age of 23 years and must not have attained the age of 35 years on the first day of January following the last date fixed for receipt of applications: Provided - (i) to (iv) xxx xxx xxx (v) that the person serving under the educational project in the State viz. Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala/ Shiksha Karmi Board/ Lok Jumbish Pariyojana/ Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/ District Primary Education Programme shall be deemed to be within age limit, had they been within the age limit when they were initially engaged even though they may have crossed the age limit at the time of direct recruitment. xxx xxx xxx
(3.) IN the case of Smt. Kamla Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan D.B. Civil Appeal (Writ) No. 436/2009, decided on 16.04.2010, a Division Bench of this Court has considered the provisions aforesaid and negatived the similar nature contentions as urged on behalf of the petitioner in the following: - ...Proviso (v) to Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 has been made specifically for the purpose of the persons serving under any of the named educational project; but then, even while creating a fiction and providing relaxation for the persons serving under the educational projects, care has been taken to extend such benefit only to the persons who were otherwise within the age limit when initially engaged on such projects and not to all and sundry. The frame of Proviso (v) to Rule 13 of the Rules of 2008 makes it clear that quite conscious of the likelihood of persons of different age being engaged in such projects, including the persons like the appellants who got engaged at a much older age, the provision has specifically been made for restricting the relaxation only to such persons working in the projects who were within the age prescribed for direct recruitment in question at the time of such initial engagement. The proviso is obviously not intended to provide age relaxation indiscriminately to all the persons engaged in the projects. The relaxation has been provided only to the persons who, at the time of their initial engagement in the project, were within the age limit that has been prescribed for the purpose of recruitment in question. The expression "age limit" as occurring in the said proviso refers, undoubtedly and only, to the age limit as prescribed in the principal provision of Rule 13, i.e., 35 years; and not to any other age limit. The relaxation has been provided to the persons who have crossed the age limit prescribed by Rule 13 ibid at the time of direct recruitment if, and only if, they are serving in any of the named projects and they had not crossed the said age limit prescribed by Rule 13 at the time of initial engagement in the project. The expression ''had they been within age limit'' does not refer to the age limit, if any, for the purpose of entry into such educational projects but, in view of its very purpose and context, refers to the age limit as provided for the recruitment in question i.e., recruitment to the post of Prabodhak. We are not impressed with the suggestion that the Rules of 2008 have been promulgated only for the purpose of regularising the services of the persons working in educational projects. The Rules of 2008 have been framed specifically to regulate the services under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 and different provisos to Rule 13 ibid dealing with the age requirement, have only spelt out various aspects of age relaxation. Merely because the Rules of 2008 provide for some relaxation, it cannot be deduced or presumed that the intention was to regularise all the persons serving in the projects en bloc.;