- (1.) ITS a joint petition filed by the petitioners with the grievance that the proviso(xvii) which has been added to R. 10 of Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homeopathy and Naturopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1966 by amendment notification dt. 09.05.2013 is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution and being discriminatory having no object sought to be achieved, may be quashed and set aside. The petitioners as alleged are working on adhoc basis in government organization namely Chief Minister BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh/National Rural Health Mission for quite sometime. However, the State Government by amendment notification dt. 09.05.2013 added proviso(xvii) to R. 10 of the Rules, 1966 providing five years relaxation to the incumbents obviously for the reason to make them eligible to participate in the selection process which the authority initiated pursuant to advertisement Annx. 4 dt. 07.06.2013 by open selection to the post of Ayurvedic, Unani and Homeopathy Compounder/Nurse Junior Grade. It is not in dispute that the petitioners have crossed the upper age limit provided under the scheme of Rules and so also the relaxation of five years which was extended to class of persons to which the petitioners belong and covered by proviso -(xvii) to R. 10 of the Rules, 1966.
(2.) COUNSEL submits that there is no justification in fixing outer limit of five years relaxation in age to the incumbents serving in the State Government organizations for sufficient long time more so when such relaxation is available u/R 10(iii) to such of the persons who were appointed in service benefit of age relaxation upto the period required has been extended to each of them as such two different standards/yardsticks being adopted by the rule making authority in regard to such of the temporary employees working and holding the post in service obviously under the Rules, 1966 covered by R. 10(iii) and the employees who are serving on a similar post in state organizations referred to in proviso -(xvii) to R. 10 of the Rules, is wholly arbitrary and in violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution.
(3.) THE submission made is wholly bereft of merit for the reason that R. 10(iii) of the Rules, 1966 provides relaxation to such of the employees who are appointed on temporary basis on the post which are included in the schedule appended to the Rules, 1966 and was within age at the time of initial appointment that is a separate class and as regards employees who had served in some of the institutions run by the State Government like BPL Jeevan Raksha Kosh/National Rural Health Mission etc., the intention of the government in granting relaxation appears to make them eligible to participate in the selection process and such of the employees could not be compared with those employees who are appointed on temporary basis under the Rules, 1966. It is always open for the rule making authority to grant the limit for relaxation in age which it considers appropriate and merely because few of the applicants/incumbents are not covered or exceeded the maximum age relaxation of five years under proviso -(xvii) to R. 10 of the Rules, 1966 it cannot be held to be arbitrary and in our considered view there was certainly an object sought to be achieved and the intention in granting relaxation of five years is to such of the persons served in government organizations covered under proviso -(xvii) to R. 10 to bring them in the mainstream and to make member of Rules, 1966.;