- (1.) ALL these writ petitions are involved common question of law, therefore, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common order.
(2.) BY these writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking appointment on the post of Prabodhak pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.05.2008 issued by respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the candidatures of the petitioners have been rejected while treating them overage. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are working as Shiksha Sahyogi/Para Teacher in Rajeev Gandhi Swarn Jayanti Pathshala, and at the time of their initial appointments, they were within age limit and, therefore, they should be treated within age for the purpose of appointment on the post of Prabodhak, even though they have crossed the age limit fixed for appointment on the post of Prabodhak. The learned counsel for the petitioners has further contended that this Court at Jaipur Bench has already decided this question in SBCWP No.1839/2009 (Smt. Shailesh Verma & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) & 72 other petitions vide order dated 05.09.2012 and has held that if no age limit was provided at the time of initial appointment, then Rule has to be construed to be beneficial to the petitioners because their initial appointments were within the age limit as no limitation of age was provided.
(3.) NO other point was pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court.;