Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari - (1.) THE petitioners, who are in the age group of about 38 to 44 years, have filed this writ petition claiming upper age relaxation for consideration of their candidature in recruitment to the post of Prabodhak under the advertisement dated 31.05.2008 whereby the age requirement was stated minimum at 23 years and maximum at 35 years but age relaxation was granted in relation to the persons working in different educational projects like Rajiv Gandhi Schools, Shiksha Karmi Yojana etc., if they were within age limit at the time of initial engagement. The petitioners submit that they too were within the age limit at the time of initial engagement in the non -government educational institutions and ought to be provided the age relaxation for they were engaged in the same nature job as that of the persons who were allowed relaxation in age per Rule 13 (v) of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabodhak Service Rules, 2008 ('the Rules of 2008'). The said provision 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) xxxx (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. xxxx The petitioners have not challenged in this petition the provision aforesaid and it remains undeniable that therein, age relaxation has been provided in relation to specific category of persons and not indiscriminately to everyone. Standing the position of the Rules of 2008 aforesaid, the petitioners do not appear entitled to any relief in this writ petition, filed only in the month of December 2011.
(2.) THE petition fails and is, therefore, dismissed.;