Munishwar Nath Bhandari, J. - (1.) THE grievance of the petitioner/s is that the respondent -State has issued advertisement dated 30.05.2013 inviting applications for recruitment to the post of Education Assistant (Shiksha Sahayak) under the Rajasthan Education Assistant Service Rules, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 2013"), for consideration of eligible candidates for their appointment against 33689 posts. The submission of the petitioner/s is that their on -line applications for consideration of their candidature are not being entertained by the respondents in view of Rule 15(x) of the Rules, 2013 which, stipulates as under: - - 15. A candidate for direct recruitment to a post enumerated in the Schedule must have attained the age of 18 years and must not have attained the age of 35 years on the first day of January next following the last date fixed for receipt of applications: (x) the person serving under any Government school/Government Educational Projects viz. Lok Jumbish Pariyojna/Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan/District Primary Education Programme/Rajiv Gandhi Pathshala Shiksha Karmi Board and Madarasa listed under the Madarasa Board shall be deemed to be within age limit, had they been within the age limit when they were initially engaged even though may have crossed the age limit at the time of direct recruitment. The further submission of the counsel for the petitioner/s by placing reliance on the decision as rendered by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 1839/2009 (Smt. Shailesh Verma & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. & other connected petitions), is that while interpreting Rule 13(v) of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Prabhodhak Service Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 2008) this Court has held that if no age limit was provided at the time of initial appointment, then the appointment of such candidates will be, treated within the age limit as stipulated under Rule 13(v) of the Rules, 2008. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that he would be satisfied if a direction is issued to the respondent -State to consider case of the petitioner(s) in the light of the verdict of this Court as in the case of Smt. Shailesh Verma (supra), which has been reiterated by this Court yet in another writ petition being S.B.C.W.P. No. 5818/2013 (Rajesh Pareek v. The Additional Chief Secretary & Anr.) decided vide order dated 27th April, 2013.
(2.) IN the result, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the petitioner/s to make a detailed representation addressed to the respondents, who shall examine the case of the petitioner/s in the light of the judgment of Smt. Shailesh Verma (supra). It is expected of the respondents to decide the matter as expeditiously as possible but in no case later than ten days from the date of submission of the representation. The writ petition stands disposed of and the stay application stands closed.;